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

Re: [ExExGayMinistry] Re: Another Messy Scandal Rocks "Ex-Gay" Movement

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 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 2 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 3 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 4 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 5 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 6 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 7 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 8 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 9 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 10 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 11 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 12 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 13 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.