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

Re: Another Messy Scandal Rocks "Ex-Gay" Movement

Expand Messages
  • nyguy_1225
    Paul, I can not comment on requirements for the Bahai or any other non-Christian faith, nor do I think this would be the proper venue to do so since this
    Message 1 of 19 , Aug 16, 2003
    • 0 Attachment
      Paul, I can not comment on requirements for the Bahai or any other
      non-Christian faith, nor do I think this would be the proper venue
      to do so since this particular group was essentially founded for
      those looking to integrate a Christ-centered faith with their
      sexuality. And what may be indicative of the Christian faith may or
      may not apply to any other. That said, of course, all are welcome
      here.

      Regarding your question: While many Christians attempt to apply
      Bible passages either out of their proper context or in a wooden or
      literalistic kind of way (since they've been taught to do that), any
      bible scholar, except perhaps those on the fringes, would point out
      what a grievous error this can be. The Bible has been made to say
      all kinds of things that it was never intended to by very well-
      meaning people. But as best-selling author and former professor of
      biblical exegesis F.F. Bruce once said: "It is not enough to
      say: `The Bible says' ... without at the same time considering to
      whom the Bible says it, and in what circumstances." And as R.C.
      Sproul, who for years was professor of systematic theology and
      apologetics at Reformed Theological Seminary, said: "If God speaks,
      he must use words to do so. Words express thoughts, commands,
      descriptions, and the like. The problem is that words and sentences
      must be interpreted if they are to be understood. It is far more
      than a matter of translation, for while translation gets at what God
      says, we are still left with the question of what God means."

      Jesus himself NEVER applied any law or passage in a wooden or
      literalistic way. He looked at and spoke about the original purpose
      of it. The radical consequences which resulted from Jesus looking
      at the Sabbath in this way are clear in all the gospels. He
      blatantly disregarded the onerous rabbinical interpretations of what
      Sabbath observance required, on the grounds that the institution was
      intended to be a blessing and not a burden [Mark 2:27].
      (Incidentally, the application of those same interpretive principles
      to the few passages many Christians use for their antigay theology
      would similarly lead to more compassionate conclusions regarding
      homosexuality.)

      As far as marriage is concerned, I, as well as scores of respected
      and renowned scholars and theologians, do not believe the Bible
      teaches that sex outside of marriage is categorically wrong.
      Certainly the Bible says a great deal about self-indulgent or
      irresponsible expressions of our sexuality, but nowhere does it
      categorically state that sex outside of marriage is always wrong
      and/or sinful. We are not called to repent of our sexuality
      (whether gay or straight) but of our sinful responses to them.

      Those who continue to preach this error should be reminded that when
      a married man in Israel died childless, his widow was to have
      intercourse with each of his brothers in turn until she bore him a
      male heir. Jesus mentions this custom without criticism (Mark 12:18-
      27 par.) What Jesus did consider supremely important about all
      sexual relationships, however, is that people would live their
      sexual lives within their covenants with each other.

      Those who wish to take the bible serious should consider: Unlike the
      people Paul describes in Romans 1 who had TURNED THEIR BACKS on God
      and resort to a depraved lifestyle, the gay Christians I know have
      TURNED TO GOD and seek after Him with all their heart.

      Unlike the people Paul describes in Romans 1 who have REJECTED God,
      the gay Christians I know have not rejected God at all; they love
      God and they thank God for his grace and his gifts.

      Unlike those Paul describes in Romans 1 who had turned
      from "natural" heterosexual practices to homosexual practices for
      purposes of their pagan fertility cults, the gay Christians I know
      have not given up heterosexual passions for homosexual lusts. They
      have never been heterosexual. They have been homosexual from the
      moment of their earliest sexual stirrings.

      And unlike those Paul describes in Romans 1 who were constantly
      lusting after each other and in their actions were only following
      their lusts, the gay Christians I know do not lust after each other
      any more than heterosexual people lust after each other. They seek
      abiding personal companionship, enduring love, shared intimacy and
      complete trust from each other just as heterosexual people, at their
      best, do.

      Hope this helps!

      -Alex

      --- In exexgayministry@yahoogroups.com, Paul Jackson
      <rembrandtjackson@s...> wrote:
      > Alex,
      >
      > I am so in agreement with your thoughts on the matter of the man
      who published his testimony in CT. I have a question for you that I
      would be interested in your help with. In my community, the Bahai'
      Faith, our institutions have only dealt with this issue on a
      superficial level. When they have dealt with it, they often point
      out that while it is very difficult to not act on sexual feelings,
      the homosexual Bahai's should always remember that they are no
      different than their heterosexual counterparts. They must strive to
      meet the requirements of Bahai' membership just like heterosexuals.
      The Bahai teachings make it clear that any sexual activity outside
      of marriage is not permitted, and since homosexuality entails having
      sex outside of marriage, as marriage is only allowed in the Faith
      between a man and a woman, they must either remain celibate, or
      choose marriage to a person of the opposite sex.
      >
      > My own contention here is that no, we are not just like all of the
      other Bahai's. The heterosexual Bahai's do not have to face a life
      of loneliness, knowing that they will never be able to get married
      to someone they love and are attracted to. The biggest thing that
      the Bahai' institutions seemed to be concerned about is that they do
      not want the homosexual Bahai's to define themselves by their sexual
      orientation, as they maintain that this is such a small part of who
      we are as human beings. While there is some merit in this line of
      reasoning, I find it to fall short of completely explaining to me
      why I am the same as all other Bahai's.
      >
      > Please understand also, that I am very much enamored by my Faith,
      and in all other issues in my faith, I agree and am very comfortable
      with. So leaving my Faith is not an option at this point. I would be
      very interested in what your thoughts on this are.
      >
      > In His Service,
      >
      > Paul
      >
      > nyguy_1225 <no_reply@yahoogroups.com> wrote:
      > << I am sure that Mr. Johnston is suffering beyond his wildest
      > dreams because of his refusal to be honest with himself. I hope
      that
      > some good comes of this somehow, for all involved, even Mr.
      > Johnston.>>
      >
      > It's yet another illustration of the life one sets oneself up for
      > when one buys into the lie to have a "right" relationship with God
      > one must pursue heterosexuality. It reminds me of the "No Easy
      > Victory" testimony that Christianity Today (CT) published last
      > year. Last March, CT astonishingly published the very honest
      > testimony of an anonymous Christian (he didn't reveal his name)
      who
      > acknowledges "the fact that I'm still homosexual" ("No Easy
      Victory"
      > by Anonymous, Christianity Today, March 11, 2002). He said
      > he's "tried to change, tried to become heterosexual, tried just
      > about everything to do so! Counseling, therapy, prayer, healing –
      > you name it. But for all my trying, all I've managed to do is
      > control the behavioral manifestations of my sexual orientation."
      >
      > At one point, he calls himself a "happily married man for more
      than
      > 25 years, and proud father of a couple of teenagers." But his is,
      > as he admits, "no easy victory." In fact, given what he says about
      > his "daily battle," the word "victory" is pathetic. And what does
      > his being "happily married" feel like? "There are times when
      > maintaining this dichotomous life is nearly overwhelming. Over the
      > years I've continued to struggle with emotional attractions and
      > attachments to other men that have torn away at my insides and
      > eroded my confidence in myself and in God. I continue to struggle
      > from time to time with thoughts that my wife and sons would be
      > better off if they didn't have to deal with such a moody husband
      and
      > father – especially his recurring bouts of almost suicidal
      > depression." He grants that his "victory [is] one that comes at
      > considerable psychological cost to me and to my family" – an
      > understatement.
      >
      > He's "sometimes angry about the effort required, and I am
      frequently
      > angry that I have had to do this on my own, without the support of
      > friends or of a caring Christian community" (he's his
      congregation's
      > president and youth-group leader – closeted, of course). He's
      angry
      > that fellow Christians so easily wink at heterosexual missteps
      > ("hormones, you know") while calling his "abomination." He's angry
      > that heterosexual Christians either push an ineffectual "fix" or
      > urge that he "accept and live out" his homosexual orientation. He
      > sees that he and many others "who actually are homosexual" are
      left
      > out, "misunderstood, marginalized, and ignored." This hard and
      > lonely life, he says, is the "reality shared by many more than
      just
      > me, but disclosed by few."
      >
      > With all his acknowledged and understandable anger and
      frustration,
      > why does he put up with a marriage mismatched by something so
      basic
      > to marriage as sexual orientation? Because it is his "fervent
      > belief that God intends us to live in heterosexual and monogamous
      > fidelity." But is his marriage heterosexual in any sense other
      than
      > anatomical? Real marriage is far more intimate than anatomical
      > correctness. And what is the "testimony" of the wife and sons,
      > living with such a constantly frustrated, tempted, angry, moody,
      > depressed and isolated husband and father? How can any honest CT
      > reader actually believe he's a "happily married" man or that this
      is
      > a "happy" family? And how can Golden Rule readers in marriages
      that
      > fit in terms of sexual orientation, not sense complicity in this
      > poor family's predicament? Would a heterosexual be "happy" in
      > a "marriage" with a person of the same gender? Would heterosexual
      > readers wish such a mismatch for their children? If they can grasp
      > even a hint of the injustice of this situation, how can they read
      of
      > it – even if they bother to do so – and then go on about their
      > business as though this man and his family are not having to
      > continue to contend with all the daily consequences of an ill-
      > conceived coupling in the name of Christian virtue? Yet just such
      a
      > counter-productive arrangement is one of the "expanded
      alternatives"
      > proposed for gay Christians by heterosexual Christian counselors
      who
      > must admit that sexual orientation doesn't really change.
      >
      > Of course, an unhappy life is not an unknown calling for a people
      > who worship the Christ of the cross. But sexual hardship itself is
      > hardly the calling!
      >
      > -Alex
      >
      > --- In exexgayministry@yahoogroups.com, Paul Jackson
      > wrote:
      > > D.
      > >
      > > I heard about this about a week and a half ago. I am on the
      Exodus
      > mailing list. I like to keep my eye on what the enemy is doing. lol
      > >
      > > In all seriousness, I was heartbroken when I read this about Mr.
      > Johnston. I was not so much sad for him as I was for the innocent
      > people who may have been exposed to hiv.
      > >
      > > I am sure that Mr. Johnston is suffering beyond his wildest
      dreams
      > because of his refusal to be honest with himself. I hope that some
      > good comes of this somehow, for all involved, even Mr. Johnston.
      > >
      > > The people who encourage such behavior should be ashamed at the
      > fruit they have produced. I hope all of the straight preachers out
      > there in fundy land who go around cheerleading such things reads
      > about this.
      > >
      > > Paul
      > >
      > > calldon2k wrote:
      > > --- In exexgayministry@yahoogroups.com, nyguy_1225
      > > wrote:
      > > > Another "ex-gay" leader is found to be having sex with other
      men
      > > > while claiming "freedom from homosexuality."
      > > >
      > > > www.sovo.com/2003/8-8/news/national/exgay.cfm
      > > >
      > > > Hopefully the unmasking of Johnston's lie will help him to
      come
      > to
      > > > terms with integrating his rich faith with his unchangeable
      > sexual
      > > > orientation so he can finally begin to live an honest,
      authentic
      > > and
      > > > responsible life before God, before man -- and before himself.
      > >
      > > He has exposed many sex partners to HIV by having un-safe sex
      with
      > > them. As far as I know, he has made no real public statement of
      > > appology or any comment in general about it, other than to close
      > the
      > > ministry. Hmmm!?!
      > >
      > > Now...how is Michael Johnston gonna tell those folks about Jesus?
      > >
      > > D*
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
      > > exexgayministry-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
      > http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      >
      >
      >
      > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
      > exexgayministry-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
      >
      >
      >
      > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
      http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
      >
      >
      >
      >
      > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • dixibehr@aol.com
      ... The question that I frequently ask--especially of the Biblical gay bashers--is this: Limiting what i m asking to heterosexual marriage (to make it easy),
      Message 2 of 19 , Aug 16, 2003
      • 0 Attachment
        In a message dated 8/16/03 6:32:51 AM, no_reply@yahoogroups.com writes:


        > As far as marriage is concerned, I, as well as scores of respected
        > and renowned scholars and theologians, do not believe the Bible
        > teaches that sex outside of marriage is categorically wrong. 
        >

        The question that I frequently ask--especially of the Biblical gay
        bashers--is this:

        Limiting what i'm asking to heterosexual marriage (to make it easy),
        according to the Bible just WHAT should a man and a woman do to be really, truly,
        validly, and properly married in God's eyes. Please give book, chapter, and verse
        in your answer.

        What's strange is that it's MARRIED heterosexuals who get the most upset at
        this question. You think that THEY of all people would be able to answer it!
        Yet they never even attempt to.

        To save the readers of this posting trouble: The Bible doesn't say at all!
        You can't say that a marriage ceremony is absolutely necessary. Isaac and
        Rebecca, for instance, never had one. Nor did Jacob and Leah, or Jacob and Rachel,
        so far as we can tell from the Biblical data.

        However, there is one more or less constant feature in marriages in both
        Testaments--something that most Bible-believing American pop-evangelicals would
        rather be shot than follow: Marriages were arranged by the parents, or families,
        of the parties involved. You didn't get married for love of your spouse, but
        love of your family--beacuse it was your duty! As Tina Turner sings, "What's
        love got to do with it?"

        Keeping this in mind, the thrice repeated apostolic command "Husbands love
        your wives", which seems obvious to us today, was a revolutionary idea to its
        initial audiences.

        Something else. Quite often some try quoting the "for this cause shall a man
        leave his father and mother...." But if this is literally true, then Isaac was
        never really married, was he? Rebecca was brought to the tent of Sarah, where
        Isaac was living (and there was no ceremony, btw). In fact, Abraham FORBADE
        Isaac to leave the family tents! Thus a matchmaker was sent. In fact, the
        general custom was for the BRIDE to move in with the husband and his family, not
        for the man to leave, despite the words of Scripture and their literal meaning.

        Which, of course, shows that scripture in these matters, is NO to be taken
        literally!



        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      • nyguy_1225
        Message 3 of 19 , Aug 17, 2003
        • 0 Attachment
          <<However, there is one more or less constant feature in marriages
          in both Testaments--something that most Bible-believing American pop-
          evangelicals would rather be shot than follow: Marriages were
          arranged by the parents, or families, of the parties involved. You
          didn't get married for love of your spouse, but love of your family--
          because it was your duty!

          Well, yes and no. Marriages were arranged by parents also for the
          modality of power. In addition, men needed offspring to leave their
          inheritance to and children were also needed to work the land.
          There was no romantic dating as we know it. In fact there was
          virtually no time for leisure to speak of at all. Just think about
          what it required even as early as a generation or two ago just to
          wash clothes before the washing machine??!! An entire day was often
          devoted to it. Ironing often took another whole day. Furthermore,
          one couldn't simply walk into a supermarket and purchase a loaf of
          bread. One had to bake their own. This too often required a whole
          day. And what was required a generation or two ago to take a bath?
          One had to get a big metal tub. It had to be filled with water.
          The water had to be heated, etc. Such a major undertaking ("drawing
          a bath") was such a task that if it happened once a week, it was a
          lot. And because of all the work involved, the same bath water
          would then often be used for the whole family! And deodorant, for
          that matter, didn't come into being until about 50 years ago. This
          list goes on and on and this was just a generation or two ago let
          alone centuries ago. Where then was the time to sit around
          watching soap operas and fanaticizing about the boy next door or the
          girl down the road? It simply didn't exist. If you intuit some of
          these realities it becomes clearer and easier to understand why
          homosexuality as a sexual orientation (or as a psycho-sexual
          experience) could not have existed in Bible times. Even
          heterosexuality as we know it was very, very different.

          Romance as we know it did not come into being until the Middle Ages,
          which is precisely why the period is referred to as the "Romance
          Period."

          Rules surrounding marriage and adultery were also centered around
          property rights. When one got married in Bible times it was akin to
          purchasing property. A price was paid by the boy (or the boy's
          family) and the wife became his "property." This gives insight into
          why Jesus said to even LOOK at another man's wife as if to want to
          sleep with her was in and of itself considered adultery. To sleep
          with another man's wife was like driving his car, i.e. taking his
          property!

          This also provides insight to why the Apostle Paul's words about
          marriage were so revolutionary: For those who had not received the
          gift of celibacy, Paul had to specify circumstances for sexuality
          intercourse that would not be in conflict with Christ's "ownership"
          of the Christian body. He found them in Christian marriage. The
          distinctively Christian thing in Paul's description of marriage was
          his careful balancing of husband's sexual ownership of the wife with
          an equivalent ownership of the husband by the wife -- which was
          absolutely unheard of prior to this for women had virtually no
          rights whatsoever! Sexual desire, according to Paul (see 1
          Corinthians) is a fact of human life that must be reckoned with
          intelligently and faithfully; it is not to be ignored or rejected.
          Marriage exists, according to Paul, for the sake of mutual sexual
          satisfaction; and neither partner can pursue a sexual course that
          does not involve the other, since each is the property of the other.

          -Alex

          --- In exexgayministry@yahoogroups.com, dixibehr@a... wrote:
          >
          > In a message dated 8/16/03 6:32:51 AM, no_reply@yahoogroups.com
          writes:
          >
          >
          > > As far as marriage is concerned, I, as well as scores of
          respected
          > > and renowned scholars and theologians, do not believe the Bible
          > > teaches that sex outside of marriage is categorically wrong. 
          > >
          >
          > The question that I frequently ask--especially of the Biblical gay
          > bashers--is this:
          >
          > Limiting what i'm asking to heterosexual marriage (to make it
          easy),
          > according to the Bible just WHAT should a man and a woman do to be
          really, truly,
          > validly, and properly married in God's eyes. Please give book,
          chapter, and verse
          > in your answer.
          >
          > What's strange is that it's MARRIED heterosexuals who get the most
          upset at
          > this question. You think that THEY of all people would be able to
          answer it!
          > Yet they never even attempt to.
          >
          > To save the readers of this posting trouble: The Bible doesn't say
          at all!
          > You can't say that a marriage ceremony is absolutely necessary.
          Isaac and
          > Rebecca, for instance, never had one. Nor did Jacob and Leah, or
          Jacob and Rachel,
          > so far as we can tell from the Biblical data.
          >
          > However, there is one more or less constant feature in marriages
          in both
          > Testaments--something that most Bible-believing American pop-
          evangelicals would
          > rather be shot than follow: Marriages were arranged by the
          parents, or families,
          > of the parties involved. You didn't get married for love of your
          spouse, but
          > love of your family--beacuse it was your duty! As Tina Turner
          sings, "What's
          > love got to do with it?"
          >
          > Keeping this in mind, the thrice repeated apostolic
          command "Husbands love
          > your wives", which seems obvious to us today, was a revolutionary
          idea to its
          > initial audiences.
          >
          > Something else. Quite often some try quoting the "for this cause
          shall a man
          > leave his father and mother...." But if this is literally true,
          then Isaac was
          > never really married, was he? Rebecca was brought to the tent of
          Sarah, where
          > Isaac was living (and there was no ceremony, btw). In fact,
          Abraham FORBADE
          > Isaac to leave the family tents! Thus a matchmaker was sent. In
          fact, the
          > general custom was for the BRIDE to move in with the husband and
          his family, not
          > for the man to leave, despite the words of Scripture and their
          literal meaning.
          >
          > Which, of course, shows that scripture in these matters, is NO to
          be taken
          > literally!
          >
          >
          >
          > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        • dixibehr@aol.com
          ... You have made some VERY good points, and I m glad you did. However, I will disagree with one of your points. Homosexuality as a sexual orientation (as well
          Message 4 of 19 , Aug 17, 2003
          • 0 Attachment
            > If you intuit some of
            > these realities it becomes clearer and easier to understand why
            > homosexuality as a sexual orientation (or as a psycho-sexual
            > experience) could not have existed in Bible times.  Even
            > heterosexuality as we know it was very, very different. 
            >
            You have made some VERY good points, and I'm glad you did.

            However, I will disagree with one of your points. Homosexuality as a sexual
            orientation (as well as heterosexuality as an orientation) ALWAYS existed from
            the beginning of the species Homo sapiens sapiens. It just wasn't recognized,
            or given a name, until the middle of the 19th century.

            And I suppose that the "wife as property" attitude was why the 10th
            commandment didn't simply end the matter with "Thou shalt not commit adultery," but
            concluded. "Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's wife [or chattels or other
            goods]"




            [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
          • nyguy_1225
            Message 5 of 19 , Aug 17, 2003
            • 0 Attachment
              <<You have made some VERY good points, and I'm glad you did.
              However, I will disagree with one of your points. Homosexuality as a
              sexual orientation (as well as heterosexuality as an orientation)
              ALWAYS existed from the beginning of the species Homo sapiens. It
              just wasn't recognized, or given a name, until the middle of the
              19th century.>>

              You are certainly free to disagree if you like but you'd be hard-
              pressed to come up with any credible evidence to support your
              conviction. I'm afraid the Bible is an empty closet. There are no
              homosexuals in the Bible. Contrary to the belief of some, Ruth and
              Naomi were not lesbians. David and Jonathan weren't gay. Neither
              were Jesus and John, the men of Sodom, cult prostitutes, slave boys
              and their masters, nor call boys and their customers.

              Ideas and understandings of sexuality have changed greatly over the
              centuries. People in biblical times did not share our knowledge or
              customs of sexuality; we do not share their experience. The
              ancients, as MIT's David Halperin notes: "conceived of 'sexuality'
              in non-sexual terms: What was fundamental to their experience of sex
              was not anything we would regard as essentially sexual: rather, it
              was something essentially social -- namely, the modality of power
              relations that informed and structured the sexual act." In the
              ancient world, sex was "not intrinsically relational or
              collaborative in character, it is, further, a deeply polarizing
              experience: It serves to divide, to classify, and to distribute its
              participants into distinct and radically dissimilar categories. Sex
              possesses this valence, apparently because it is conceived to center
              essentially on, and to define itself around, an asymmetrical
              gesture, that of the penetration of the body of one person by the
              body, and, specifically, by the phallus -- of another. .... The
              proper targets of [a citizen's] sexual desire include, specifically,
              women, boys, foreigners, and slaves -- all of them persons who do
              not enjoy the same legal and political rights and privileges that he
              does." In studies of sex in history, Stanford classics professor
              John J. Winkler warns against "reading contemporary concerns and
              politics into texts and artifacts removed from their social
              context." This, of course, is a fundamental principle of biblical
              hermeneutics.

              -Alex

              --- In exexgayministry@yahoogroups.com, dixibehr@a... wrote:
              >
              > > If you intuit some of
              > > these realities it becomes clearer and easier to understand why
              > > homosexuality as a sexual orientation (or as a psycho-sexual
              > > experience) could not have existed in Bible times.  Even
              > > heterosexuality as we know it was very, very different. 
              > >
              > You have made some VERY good points, and I'm glad you did.
              >
              > However, I will disagree with one of your points. Homosexuality as
              a sexual
              > orientation (as well as heterosexuality as an orientation) ALWAYS
              existed from
              > the beginning of the species Homo sapiens sapiens. It just wasn't
              recognized,
              > or given a name, until the middle of the 19th century.
              >
              > And I suppose that the "wife as property" attitude was why the
              10th
              > commandment didn't simply end the matter with "Thou shalt not
              commit adultery," but
              > concluded. "Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's wife [or chattels
              or other
              > goods]"
              >
              >
              >
              >
              > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
            • dixibehr@aol.com
              ... My point is that just as measles and mumps and redheads and chickens always exists (at least since the beginning of recorded history), so did homosexual
              Message 6 of 19 , Aug 17, 2003
              • 0 Attachment
                In a message dated 8/17/03 11:36:18 AM, no_reply@yahoogroups.com writes:


                > <<You have made some VERY good points, and I'm glad you did. 
                > However, I will disagree with one of your points. Homosexuality as a
                > sexual orientation (as well as heterosexuality as an orientation)
                > ALWAYS existed from the beginning of the species Homo sapiens. It
                > just wasn't recognized, or given a name, until the middle of the
                > 19th century.>>
                >
                > You are certainly free to disagree if you like but you'd be hard-
                > pressed to come up with any credible evidence to support your
                > conviction.  I'm afraid the Bible is an empty closet.  There are no
                > homosexuals in the Bible.
                >

                My point is that just as measles and mumps and redheads and chickens always
                exists (at least since the beginning of recorded history), so did homosexual
                orientation, even though it wasn't recognized as such, or even given a name
                until 150 years ago or so.

                Yes, there ARE homosexuals as we understand the term in the Bible. The law of
                averages says so. It's like the man who says he doesn't know any homosexuals,
                and has no gay friends. He does, too. He simply doesn't know who they
                are--yet. By the same token, there ARE homosexuals in the Bible (as well as redheads,
                blondes, and southpaws). But it IS true that we don[t have enough infomation
                to pin the rainbows on the right ones.


                [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
              • nyguy_1225
                I know what your point is; you stated it clearly two posts ago. I will reiterate what I said in my last post: You are free to believe anything you like. But
                Message 7 of 19 , Aug 17, 2003
                • 0 Attachment
                  I know what your point is; you stated it clearly two posts ago. I
                  will reiterate what I said in my last post: You are free to believe
                  anything you like. But you'd be hard-pressed to come up with
                  credible evidence to support it. Quite the contrary, the evidence
                  does not support it. We can quote from the published works of
                  dozens of historians and scholars who have devoted more time and
                  effort to this study and subject than both of us and who are more
                  learned in Scripture than you and I will ever be -- and they
                  wholeheartedly and categorically disagree with you.

                  -Alex

                  --- In exexgayministry@yahoogroups.com, dixibehr@a... wrote:
                  >
                  > In a message dated 8/17/03 11:36:18 AM, no_reply@yahoogroups.com
                  writes:
                  >
                  >
                  > > <<You have made some VERY good points, and I'm glad you did. 
                  > > However, I will disagree with one of your points. Homosexuality
                  as a
                  > > sexual orientation (as well as heterosexuality as an orientation)
                  > > ALWAYS existed from the beginning of the species Homo sapiens. It
                  > > just wasn't recognized, or given a name, until the middle of the
                  > > 19th century.>>
                  > >
                  > > You are certainly free to disagree if you like but you'd be hard-
                  > > pressed to come up with any credible evidence to support your
                  > > conviction.  I'm afraid the Bible is an empty closet.  There are
                  no
                  > > homosexuals in the Bible.
                  > >
                  >
                  > My point is that just as measles and mumps and redheads and
                  chickens always
                  > exists (at least since the beginning of recorded history), so did
                  homosexual
                  > orientation, even though it wasn't recognized as such, or even
                  given a name
                  > until 150 years ago or so.
                  >
                  > Yes, there ARE homosexuals as we understand the term in the Bible.
                  The law of
                  > averages says so. It's like the man who says he doesn't know any
                  homosexuals,
                  > and has no gay friends. He does, too. He simply doesn't know who
                  they
                  > are--yet. By the same token, there ARE homosexuals in the Bible
                  (as well as redheads,
                  > blondes, and southpaws). But it IS true that we don[t have enough
                  infomation
                  > to pin the rainbows on the right ones.
                  >
                  >
                  > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                • dixibehr@aol.com
                  ... Are you saying that homosexuality, AS AN UNCHOSEN ORIENTATION, is a comparatively recent thing? Seems to me that even Plato suggested otherwise in
                  Message 8 of 19 , Aug 17, 2003
                  • 0 Attachment
                    In a message dated 8/17/03 12:24:14 PM, no_reply@yahoogroups.com writes:


                    > Quite the contrary, the evidence
                    > does not support it. 
                    >

                    Are you saying that homosexuality, AS AN UNCHOSEN ORIENTATION, is a
                    comparatively recent thing?

                    Seems to me that even Plato suggested otherwise in SYMPOSIUM.


                    [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                  • dixibehr@aol.com
                    ... I supposed there will always be more learned persons than either of us in any discipline. However, I DO have a doctrate in divinity, OK? [Non-text portions
                    Message 9 of 19 , Aug 17, 2003
                    • 0 Attachment
                      In a message dated 8/17/03 12:24:14 PM, no_reply@yahoogroups.com writes:


                      > who are more
                      > learned in Scripture than you and I will ever be -- and they
                      > wholeheartedly and categorically disagree with you.
                      >

                      I supposed there will always be more learned persons than either of us in any
                      discipline.

                      However, I DO have a doctrate in divinity, OK?


                      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                    • nyguy_1225
                      I think I made the point relatively clear in post #2932 as well as in numerous other posts on this board in the past where the works of several renowned
                      Message 10 of 19 , Aug 17, 2003
                      • 0 Attachment
                        I think I made the point relatively clear in post #2932 as well as
                        in numerous other posts on this board in the past where the works of
                        several renowned scholars and historians were quoted.

                        -Alex

                        --- In exexgayministry@yahoogroups.com, dixibehr@a... wrote:
                        >
                        > In a message dated 8/17/03 12:24:14 PM, no_reply@yahoogroups.com
                        writes:
                        >
                        >
                        > > Quite the contrary, the evidence
                        > > does not support it. 
                        > >
                        >
                        > Are you saying that homosexuality, AS AN UNCHOSEN ORIENTATION, is
                        a
                        > comparatively recent thing?
                        >
                        > Seems to me that even Plato suggested otherwise in SYMPOSIUM.
                        >
                        >
                        > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                      • nyguy_1225
                        I know people who have a doctorate in divinity who are atheists and I know doctors with medical degrees who are quacks. What s your point? -Alex ... of us in
                        Message 11 of 19 , Aug 17, 2003
                        • 0 Attachment
                          I know people who have a doctorate in divinity who are atheists and
                          I know doctors with medical degrees who are quacks. What's your
                          point?

                          -Alex

                          --- In exexgayministry@yahoogroups.com, dixibehr@a... wrote:
                          >
                          > In a message dated 8/17/03 12:24:14 PM, no_reply@yahoogroups.com
                          writes:
                          >
                          >
                          > > who are more
                          > > learned in Scripture than you and I will ever be -- and they
                          > > wholeheartedly and categorically disagree with you.
                          > >
                          >
                          > I supposed there will always be more learned persons than either
                          of us in any
                          > discipline.
                          >
                          > However, I DO have a doctrate in divinity, OK?
                          >
                          >
                          > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                        • calldon2k
                          ... chickens always ... homosexual ... given a name ... Considering what has been called the fluid nature of sexuality, exactly WHAT is a homosexual? Are
                          Message 12 of 19 , Sep 11, 2003
                          • 0 Attachment
                            --- In exexgayministry@yahoogroups.com, dixibehr@a... wrote:
                            > My point is that just as measles and mumps and redheads and
                            chickens always
                            > exists (at least since the beginning of recorded history), so did
                            homosexual
                            > orientation, even though it wasn't recognized as such, or even
                            given a name
                            > until 150 years ago or so.

                            Considering what has been called the "fluid" nature of sexuality,
                            exactly WHAT is a homosexual? Are you considered a homosexual when
                            you are 30% straight and 70% gay? Are you considered homosexual when
                            you are 20$% straight and 80% gay? How about if you are 90% gay but
                            you still get a thril at a nice boob or pair of female legs?

                            What we label 'homosexual" is more subjective then objective!

                            D*
                          • calldon2k
                            ... It is a subjective moniker. There are few who would honestly say that they never have a twinge at the opposite sex. It is a objective as the testimonies
                            Message 13 of 19 , Sep 11, 2003
                            • 0 Attachment
                              --- In exexgayministry@yahoogroups.com, dixibehr@a... wrote:
                              >
                              > In a message dated 8/17/03 12:24:14 PM, no_reply@yahoogroups.com
                              writes:
                              > > Quite the contrary, the evidence
                              > > does not support it. 
                              >
                              > Are you saying that homosexuality, AS AN UNCHOSEN ORIENTATION, is a
                              > comparatively recent thing?

                              It is a subjective moniker. There are few who would honestly say
                              that they never have a twinge at the opposite sex.

                              It is a objective as the testimonies of those who claim to be Ex-gay.
                            • nyguy_1225
                              I think homosexuality can best be defined as the
                              Message 14 of 19 , Sep 12, 2003
                              • 0 Attachment
                                <<Considering what has been called the "fluid" nature of sexuality,
                                exactly WHAT is a homosexual?...>>

                                I think homosexuality can best be defined as the naturally occurring
                                ability to fall in love with a person of the same gender rather than
                                with anyone of the other gender. As such, and as any straight
                                person would know from their own experience of heterosexual
                                orientation, it cannot be reduced to a matter of genital nerve
                                ending stimulation and body parts. It's the same un-asked-for
                                experience for heterosexuals and homosexuals; only in the former
                                case the person of affection is of the other gender and in the
                                latter case the person of affection is of the same gender.
                                Experientially, it's the very same core need, the very same gift of
                                God. It's about an involuntary enthusiasm of romantic response in
                                the presence of someone seen as wonderfully "other," as mystery, as
                                precious differentness from one's own sense of self, as
                                complementary beloved. And it's about a deep longing for that
                                person in his or her absence. It is a lack that nothing but the
                                beloved can supply.
                              Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.