Let's get this straight, OK? Homosexuality and the Bible

[Thtwudbeme]

I am so freaking tired of reading crap that is written about Homosexuals, Christians, the Bible, Fundies....and all the bullshit associated with it.

So, let's put this shit to rest once and for all, shall we?

1. Yes, the Bible does indeed speak out against homosexual MEN. Specifically in Paul's letters to the Romans and some shit in Leviticus, and a couple of other sundrie verses scattered hither and yonder.

Got it? MEN. OK, DUers and lurking Conservatives (yes...this is going to be especially hard for you, but just try....ok?)...let's put on our thinking caps...and like any three year old is capable of...ask ourselves....

"Why would the Bible only mention gay MEN if homosexuality was such a sin? Wouldn't they have a problem with the womyn too?"

Good question!!! Very good question? Why would Paul make such a big deal of homosexuality among men, and not mention the womyn out there partying with the other chicks in town?

This is where History and Biology come in! Remember, in that day and age, the name of the game was to get bigger populations (what with infant deaths and such matters)...sooooo....the husbands could spend twenty minutes with their boyfriends, and come home and be unable to get their wimmenfolk knocked up...plus, they didn't have the super duper germ killing soap and antibiotics that we have today: therefore, no babies, or dead wives.

However the Womyn could spend the entire afternoon with the gals, watch the brats at the same time, and get knocked up after dinner.

Do you all understand that?

I personally believe in God (my husband does not) and I believe that S/he gave us brains to USE and develop...NOT to be stuck in a thought rut of 2,000 years.

So, anyone that doesn't believe in "Gay Marriage" or whatever else you want to call your discriminatory shit, can bite my behind.

[illflem]

1. Great post!

[DrWeird]

2. Let me simplify it.

If you don't like homosexuals, you're a God damned bigot.

[Thtwudbeme]

5. Well, yeah....naturally I agree with that

but, face it. The "Church" has done a pretty piss poor job of educating people on Religion, myths, and the authors of the Bible.

I am in school to be a minister, and this shit just pisses me off to no end, because the "Bible," it's authors, and some of the other famous myths are treated as "special" and "magical..." and "above us." It's not---it's fucking literature, and should be read with both that, history, sociology, biology, and anthropology in mind.

Stephanie

[BamaLefty]

3. I Know What You Mean

I think that there are gaping holes in the Bible, but that seems to be okay. I am a devout Christian, but yet making people 2nd class citizens is wrong in my eyes. And I am proud to be a liberal, southern, Christian, Democrat.

[The Backlash Cometh]

34. ????

And you're against Affirmative Action?

[Boosterman]

43. and wth are you talking about

I am buzzed madly and saw what he meant. WOW

[Name removed]

52. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[The Backlash Cometh]

66. Boosterman, the moderator decided to delete my message

though the basis of my answer to BamaLefty is based purely on opinion that I believe is valid for DU. This is in reference to his calling himself a Liberal, devout Christian and someone who doesn't believe in treating other people as second class citizens. I have my own opinion on what constitutes devout Christianity, and in fact, my own Christianity leads me to strong opinions that a person who calls himself a devout Christian would also be in favor of the kinds of social programs for the poor and the disadvantaged, such as AA (Affirmative Action).

For someone to be called Liberal, in my opinion, you must also believe in pro-choice and gay rights. These things are not debatable. Again, in my opinion.

[progressiveBadger]

4. Awesome

Yes, you are dead on. After my medieval history classes in college, I decided that the only reason why homosexuality is banned by religion is because of population. I remember reading that anti-homosexual sentiment in the roman catholic church began to rise sharply about the same time as the black plague hit Europe. Interesting coincidence.

[Thtwudbeme]

7. Not a coincidence at all.

I am just so burned up at the ministers that want to keep the masses ignorant, I could just spit.

This is a paticular sore spot for me; I want to be a minister, just finished up the semester of OT, and am heading into my two years of Greek, Latin, NT, etc--

Stephanie

[neuvocat]

6. I'll just put on my flamesuit now.

[Thtwudbeme]

8. Why? It's a pretty hard concept to argue, is it not?

?

[neuvocat]

9. Indeed it is.

[tuvor]

10. A few other points

Hi, Thtwudbeme, fellow Christian here.

The sin of Sodom was inhospitality. Anyone who's bothred to read the story will see that. So IMHO those inhospitable to homosexuals are the true sodomites. (Not sure if fundies will short-circuit trying to comprehend that.)

Anyway, I found this on the internets a few months ago and saved it. If you haven't seen it, I hope you like it and use it.

Cheers!

Dear Jerry Falwell,

Thank you for doing so much to educate people regarding God's Law. I have learned a great deal from your show, and try to share that knowledge with as many people as I can. When someone tries to defend the homosexual lifestyle, for example, I simply remind them that Leviticus 18:22 clearly states it to be an abomination.

I do need some advice from you, however, regarding some of the other specific laws and how to follow them.

1. When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing odor for the Lord - Lev.1:9. The problem is my neighbors. They claim the odor is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them?

2. I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her?

3. I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her period of menstrual clean- liness - Lev.15:19-24. The problem is, how do I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offense.

4. Lev. 25:44 states that I may indeed possess slaves, both male and female, provided they are purchased from neighboring nations. A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not Canadians. Can you clarify? Why can't I own Canadians?

5. I have a neighbor who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2 clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself?

6. A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an abomination - Lev. 11:10, it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality. I don't agree. Can you settle this?

7. Lev. 21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading glasses. Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle room here?

8.Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair around their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden by Lev. 19:27. How should they die?

9. I know from Lev. 11:6-8 that touching the skin of a dead pig makes me unclean, but may I still play football if I wear gloves?

10. My uncle has a farm. He violates Lev. 19:19 by planting two different crops in the same field, as does his wife by wearing garments made of two different kinds of thread (cotton/polyester blend). He also tends to curse and blaspheme a lot. Is it really necessary that we go to all the trouble of getting the whole town together to stone them? - Lev.24:10-16. Couldn't we just burn them to death at a private family affair like we do with people who sleep with their in-laws? (Lev. 20:14)

I know you have studied these things extensively, so I am confident you can help. Thank you again for reminding us that God's word is eternal and unchanging.

This letter was actually written to Dr. Laura, but it seems to work well with Mr. Falwell.

http://www.internetparodies.org/followthebible.html´

[Thtwudbeme]

12. That's a funny letter, and I love it

but, it was passed around on the internet a few years ago written to Laura Schlessinger (hypocritcal bitch).

Thank you for reposting it though; it's an oldie but a goodie.

I want to stick to the Homosexual stuff though; there are a couple of pieces of literature that have been used to discrimate against homosexuals for years---and I want people to understand WHY they were written 2,000 years ago---and that the reasons were more biological than "spiritual."

Stephanie

[tuvor]

17. And the "letter to Laura" helps to put it into context, I hope.

BTW sorry for assuming you're a Christian.

[Thtwudbeme]

19. I am very much a Christian

I am in school to be a minister--

I hope I didn't make you mad; I just wanted to keep on subject--that letter points out MANY hypocrasies!

:)

Stephanie

[tuvor]

22. No, not mad at all.

Our commonality here is our liberalism, though, not our faith. So I was wrong to assume.

Good luck with your ministry. It takes a very special kind of person.

Cheers!

[Thtwudbeme]

25. I am sorry, but what is your faith?

Did I misread your posts? I thought you were a Christian also.

I am interested in hearing your thoughts.

Stephanie

[tuvor]

32. You misread nothing. I'm an ex-Lutheran

And still consider myself a Christian, though I haven't seen the inside of a church more than a few times in years.

I've taken a lot of comfort in the articles to be found on the website www.tentmaker.org.

[Thtwudbeme]

33. Have you disagreed with anything I have written?

I am just trying to figure out where the conflict is-

Thanks for the website...I am going there now!

Stephanie

[tuvor]

38. I don't think there's any conflict.

The closest thing to any disagreement was that you seemed to think the parody letter wasn't helpful, but I think it is in that it gives some of the Bible's anti-homosexuality verses some context, i.e. it's no more a sin than mixing your fabrics.

Hope you enjoy the website.

[progressiveBadger]

18. That's hillarious

It's going into my archives.

[prodigal_green]

37. Right on!

The sin of Sodom was inhospitality.

A rabbinical student who called Randi Rhodes today said that the line in Leviticus 13: If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them; refers to pretending that another man is a woman because a woman is unavailable (such as happens in prison and the military). It is a sin because it is using someone as a sex object.

Of course, there are three chapters on skin diseases and doing a differential diagnosis of leprosy and four lines on not eating shellfish.

[tuvor]

39. Reminds me of a parody site.

www.godhatesshrimp.com

[prodigal_green]

51. it should

That's where I found this information (link to Leviticus, not just trusting a parody). It's an awesome site. I love the church sign generator too.

[chicagiana]

58. Ya know most jews ...

Most Jews don't even follow that stuff any more. They consider it "antiquated law" and allegory. Following biblical law to the letter would be like worshiping using Aesop's fables.

Sorry to any hacedic jews I might have offended ;-)

BTW, those who hate Dr Laura, just go find her spread eagle nudes on the internet. It's a good laugh!!!!

[chicagiana]

56. Parochial gymnastics ...

They will worm around most of these issues by claiming that Jesus established a "new covenant" that superceeded the "old covenant". Hence, they are than allowed to pick and choose anything from the old testament they like.

THIS, is why so-called Christians spend more time quoting the old testament rather than the new. Jesus was a riteous philosipher with words that will expand the mind like Zen Buddhism. Quoting Jesus is to be avoided expect in VERY limited cases.

[Fleshdancer]

11. This Paul guy had some serious issues regarding sex

Great post!

[Thtwudbeme]

15. Sadly....in terms of population

and increasing the number of children...Paul had a point AT THE TIME.

Unfortunately, those letters were never explained in our modern terms, so people were kept in the dark and the closet by the church, who have a vested interest in keeping the masses ignorant and frightened.

People need to understand the concept of how these documents were worded, and WHY they were written...then move on.

Like I said, I believe in God: I don't believe my non-hetero friends are anything less than perfect, precious human miracles, and should be treated as such.

I hate that churches have fucked the masses so badly; I hope a am a big enough person to be able to make a dent.

Stephanie

[progressiveBadger]

20. Good luck to you!

You will make a difference.

[Thtwudbeme]

21. Thank you; I don't ever want to live in vain

But, the "church" (and I mean the big right wing institution) has worked so hard to keep the masses undereducated for sooo very long...I don't know if I will ever see educated Christians in my lifetime.

You don't know how much I want to- You cannot imagine.

Thanks for the kind words!

Stephanie

[phylny]

27. Good for you. One of my close friends, who is a minister,

thinks along the same lines. I want to kidnap him for a weekend so that I can pepper him with questions. He is so wise :)

Best to you!

[chicagiana]

59. Thats fundamentalists

Actually, I believe that the "older" churches have developed an outstanding record of liberal arts education. If you go to Biology class at Notre Dame, you will be taught evolution. Indeed, it was the church that preserved a great portion of Greco-Roman knowledge during the dark ages (along with the Moores and Jews of Spain).

The fundamentalists are the nutcases in my book. They seem to value literal biblical interpretation as paramount. Most other learning is unnecessary. To me, they are no different than the Taliban. Except, they haven't been empowered to that degree (yet).

It seems so ironic to me that the right wingers are so critical of Iran. Iran is NOT a theocracy. They are a Democracy with Fundamentalist right wing judges. The right wing in our country want to create a system virtually IDENTICAL to that of Iran. They want judges who place constitutional law SECOND to "biblical law".

The "sane" religions are going to have to get their act together and start the old feuds back up again. Those Catholic bishops who criticized Jon Kerry should know better about the ramifications of entangling church and state. The Catholics have largely removed themselves from that business and they're all the better for it!!!

[KoKo]

13. Yuck......what are you talking about!

[Thtwudbeme]

16. You are kidding,

right?

;)

Stephanie

[mom-mad-about-bush]

14. Thought you might like this....

I got this in my e-mail yesterday...

I wanted to share this with everyone, what a great writing! Think about
what the world would be like if churches took these parts of the bible
and told their followers to follow these rules!


Hypocrisy of this moral, moral country
Dear President Bush:
Thank you for doing so much to educate people regarding God's Law. I
have learned a great deal from you and understand why you would propose
and support a constitutional amendment banning same sex marriage. As you
said "in the eyes of God marriage is based between a man a woman." I try
to share that knowledge with as many people as I can. When someone tries
to defend the homosexual lifestyle, for example, I simply remind them
that Leviticus 18:22 clearly states it to be an abomination... End of
debate.
I do need some advice from you, however, regarding some other elements
of God's Laws and how to follow them.
1. Leviticus 25:44 states that I may possess slaves, both male and
female, provided they are purchased from neighboring nations. A friend
of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not Canadians. Can you
clarify? Why can't I own Canadians?
2. I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in
Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair
price for her?
3. I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her
period of menstrual uncleanness - Lev.15: 19-24. The problem is how do
I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offence.
4. When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a
pleasing odor for the Lord - Lev.1:9. The problem is my neighbors. They
claim the odor is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them?
5. I have a neighbor who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus
35:2.clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to
kill him myself, or should I ask the police to do it?
6. A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an
abomination - Lev. 11:10, it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality.
I don't agree. Can you settle this? Are there 'degrees' of abomination?
7. Lev.21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have
a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading glasses. Does
my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle-room here?
8. Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair
around their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden by
Lev.19:27. How should they die?
9. I know from Lev. 11:6-8 that touching the skin of a dead pig makes
me unclean, but may I still play football if I wear gloves?
10. My uncle has a farm. He violates Lev.19:19 by planting two different
crops in the same field, as does his wife by wearing garments made of
two different kinds of thread (cotton/polyester blend). He also tends to
curse and blaspheme a lot. Is it really necessary that we go to all the
trouble of getting the whole town together to stone them?
Lev.24:10-16.Couldn't we just burn them to death at a private family
affair, like we do with people who sleep with their in-laws? (Lev. 20:14)

[donheld]

23. Great Thread

Great Posts all of you :yourock:

[Thtwudbeme]

28. Thank you!

:)

[H2O Man]

24. Last night Bill O'Reilly tried to pull

some cheap shit with Robert Kennedy, Jr about the democrats and homosexuals. Robert nailed him (excuse the term) on that: he pointed out that Jesus made it very clear that in cases of consensual sex, any third person pointing their fingers is the one commiting the sin. Thank you Robert for telling the truth.

[chicagiana]

60. THIS is the way ...

Once upon a time, Democrats had religion. And they could sling Jesus quotes at will.

THIS is what we need. Jesus was a LIBERAL philosipher. We need to hammer conservatives with the words contained in that bible they so hypocritically hide behind!!!!

[superconnected]

26. if you take out the statements where paul speaks about gays

and other rude stuff he says, you will notice that he speaks against discrimination, says that crap, then continues speaking against discrimination as if that crap was never inserted.

Some times he totally contradicts what he just said, in his passages where he's telling people what they cant do, and then contradicts it again with what he said in the beginning, again as if the middle wasn't him.

If you take a pencil and mark what you think paul wouldn't have said you can notice this trend a whole lot.

jmo, something I noticed.

[Thtwudbeme]

29. Well...we don't know who edited Paul's letters

The bible is more complicated than most people understand...but, great point, and thanks for adding to the thoughts on the thread!

Really great point actually!

Stephanie

[regnaD kciN]

45. There's another, more reliable way of doing this...

..but you have to know Biblical Greek.

If you read Paul in the original language, you will find a number of places where the language changes radically. Sort of like if you were reading a legal document from yesterday, and, midway through it, it broke into a rap, then went back to legalese. (O.K., maybe not that extreme, but with some real clumsiness in grammar.) It is there that many scholars assume some "modification" took place by a later scribe. Two such passages are an extremely anti-Semitic rant at the beginning of 1 Thessalonians, and one of the passages demanding that women keep silent in church.

However, I've never seen anything indicating that the anti-gay text in Romans is anything other than authentic Paul.

I'm a little bit uneasy with the practice, common in some factions of the church, to simply cut out everything they don't personally like in Paul's writings and claim that they're later additions, without some more serious evidence to support it. I think we're better off remembering that these are letters, not moral theology textbooks, written by someone who was still feeling his way through the implications that Jesus had on the Pharisaic Judaism to which he had previously devoted himself. What remained the same? What changed? I think Paul was still hashing this out in his letters (which he probably never imagined would be preserved and studied for two months, let alone two thousand years), which is why you can get all sorts of contradictions between what he says in one letter (or even one passage) and what he then says in the next one. In other words, I think you have to take virtually everything in the Pauline letters as tentative in nature, not a firm rule handed down for all time.

[dogtag]

30. Excellent post! It seems to me that all of those who believe in

God, the creator, also need to come to terms with the fact that gays are apparently created. Assuming homosexuals are indeed 'created' it must be because they have some divine purpose. Why would it be nuts to think that perhaps gay people are there to help take care of 'overflow' children. Recent studies show that gays are no worse and possibly better parents than straights. This scenario makes more sense than the premise put forth by the fundies.

Personally, I think the bible is bunk. Interesting literature, but bunk, nevertheless.

[Thtwudbeme]

31. I disagree with you, the Bible is not bunk

I think it's a collection of myths that attempted to explain (at the time) the history and nature of man.

Myths are not "bunk" per se; I strongly urge you to read Joseph Campbell.

Stephanie

Thank you for the nice things you said! I just want you to think historically, and biologically and reconsider the term "bunk!"

[dogtag]

35. I adore reading Greek, Roman and Norse myth and the Bible

has some glorious verse and stirring passages, but I still think it's basically bunk. Bunk as in nonsense. Fundies who take the Bible literally are full of bunk. Full of dangerous bunk. No better than the Taliban, IMO.

No thanks on Joseph Campbell, I'll stick with Mark Twain and H. L. Mencken. I just prefer curmudgeons.

[chicagiana]

61. Natural Revelation ...

The bible is largely allegory. Their are echoes of truth there. But you must discern between the echo and the sound that caused it.

Yes, our homophobia as a culture is largely unfounded. But things are changing as we go along. We are programming ourselves as a society to "unlearn" some of these behaviors that the old Catholic Church imposed upon us.

[disconnected]

36. "Let's get this straight, OK? Homosexuality and the Bible"

Anyone who preaches hate discounts Jesus's statement that LOVING ONE ANOTHER was the most important commandment, besides loving God.
As for homosexuality, I'm not sure about the marraige or adoption thing since the behavior sort of selects oneself for genetic annihilation (if we wanna go by what's natural and what isn't), but I honestly don't care one way or another.
But then when I hear fundies preaching about the evils of homosexuality,
I ask them what about the people who are born both male and female.
That usually cause them to have an expression that reminds one of being constipated.

[chicagiana]

62. Well, there are DIFFERENT types of loving ...

You can love your kids. But loving them in certain ways is definitely off limits.

I think that the fundies really confuse messages as it applies to the individual vs society. Many will try to pull "convert" someone out of homosexuality for the benevolent sake of their soul. Others do it because they mistakenly apply personal morality to society as a whole. Others do it because they're just plain cruel and like criticizing others.

So please, do try to tell the difference between benevolent evangelicals and assholes evangelicals. I've had MANY a conversation with an evangelical and got the sense that they were just out for my own best interest as opposed to simple "recruiting".

(BTW, that just goes for religion in general. I'm not gay ;-) )

[Sivafae]

40. This has to be one of the only times

I have ever heard a Christian say that the bible is a collection of myths. But to me, as a non-Christian (I was not raised Christian), I find that the bible is a bit more than a collection of myths. Understanding the times in which books of the bible were written is incredibly important to understanding why things were written, or recorded in the bible.
To me there are two kinds of Christians, true Christians- ones that use what Christ taught as an approach to their own life, and Constantinople Christians- ones that use the bible to convert and/or tell others how to live.
Homosexuality has to be one of the few issues that really separate the cream from the milk, IMO.
When I was a Senior in high school I did a paper on the question on whether or not homosexuality was a sin. I am not homosexual, but I grew up in San Francisco. I dealt with these passages, and came to the conclusion that indeed, they were meant for a time that no longer exists.
Thanks for the thought provoking post!

[regnaD kciN]

46. Myths...

Contrary to "conventional wisdom," myths are not stories with no basis in reality. Actually, a myth is a way of conveying a truth metaphorically or allegorically, in a way that is much more potent than a bare factual analysis. (Or, according to some definitions, a way of conveying a truth that simply doesn't fit into normal language.) Seen that way, it is quite proper for a Christian (even a rather conservative one) to say that much of scripture is mythic in nature. It doesn't mean they think it's false or made-up.

[genieroze]

41. The Bible also condemns men who spill their seed or masturbate.

[JanMichael]

42. Bingo. Grains of salt and and open mind are needed to escape ancient ...

...rules or regulations that make zero sense now days. Isn't there a verse that commands the rebellious child to be stoned by the aggrieved parents? Hardly the stuff of 2004, or 1600 for that matter.

The thing that Steph has pointed out is that the biological and historical connotations must be examined by people who wish to believe this stuff.

I don't at all but fortunately she tolerates, respects, my lack of belief as I tolerate, respect, her beliefs.

[tuvor]

44. In the passage you're referring to

Onan was killed by God because he refused to impregnate his dead brother's wife.

Not about masturbation per se.

[regnaD kciN]

47. Correct. However...

...the very fact that it was considered a religious duty at the time that, if your brother died childless, you had to sleep with his widow until she became pregnant (with that child then being legally considered the late husband's offspring, not yours) says something about the notion of a "universal, unchanging Biblical morality" that fundies regularly invoke in support of their particular code of sexual behavior.

[chicagiana]

63. Then I am dammed a thousand times over!!!!

I liked Michael Moore's role in "Lucky Numbers". He played a adherent Christian who wanted to spend his "cut" on:

a) A new furnace for his church.
b) An adult bookstore.

His idea was that masturbation and porn gave men an non carnal outlet for their "lusting". Thus, it decreased adultery, STDs, and pregnancy.

If anyone says they don't do it, they either lying, or they don't have hands.

[regnaD kciN]

48. Actually, Paul does condemn lesbianism, too...

1. Yes, the Bible does indeed speak out against homosexual MEN. Specifically in Paul's letters to the Romans and some shit in Leviticus, and a couple of other sundrie verses scattered hither and yonder.

Got it? MEN. OK, DUers and lurking Conservatives (yes...this is going to be especially hard for you, but just try....ok?)...let's put on our thinking caps...and like any three year old is capable of...ask ourselves....

"Why would the Bible only mention gay MEN if homosexuality was such a sin? Wouldn't they have a problem with the womyn too?"

I offer you Romans 1:26-27a --

For this reason God gave them up to degrading passions. Their women exchanged natural intercourse for unnatural, and in the same way also the men, giving up natural intercourse with women, were consumed with passion for one another.

I think it's more germane to ask about why conservative Christians make such a big deal about something only condemned in several passages of Leviticus and Paul, when

-- Leviticus essentially deals with purity ("Kosher") laws that Christians have ignored for millenia, with Jesus himself endorsing such an attitude, and

-- modern-day Christians rarely pay much attention to everything else Paul said that sounds "out of date" to our ears.

In other words, unless fundies are willing to consider wearing cotton-polyester blend fabrics an "abomination," and to enforce Paul's rules on women keeping their heads covered in church, why should their entire moral agenda be based on indignation against practices which are only condemned in the exact same two places?

:shrug:

[Thtwudbeme]

49. That passage may or may not

have anything to do with Lesbians---remember, what was "unnatural" to Paul was sodomy--so, their women having unnatural intercourse might have been just women who preferred not to have vaginal intercourse.

Paul was pretty specific on the male gay stuff...why would he make a snappy comment about women, and not specify who they were being unnatural with?

[chicagiana]

64. I've heard anything other than straight missionary intercourse referred .

... referred to as sodomy.

Oral sex - Sodomy
Fingering - Sodomy
Doggie Style - Sodomy
Tittie Fucking/Licking - Sodomy


Of course, the old jews considered a woman's flesh so impure that they had to do it separated by a sheet with a hole cut out for the penis.

So I suppose, that you could consider flesh contact sex "sodomy" as well.

[foreigncorrespondent]

50. Great post girl!!!

You always amaze me. And yes, you are gonna make one hell of a minister! :)

:yourock:

[lateo]

53. Paul was a christian killer wasn't he?

Maybe Paul realized he wouldn't be able to kill them all so he joined the cult and fucked it up from the inside.

[chicagiana]

54. Parochial Gayness ...

I tend to chuckel at approbriations from the Catholic Church about homosexuality. I would bet that well over half the catholic clergy is gay. Indeed, what better outlet for a gay man that will allow him to avoid the scourage of "laying with a woman" while simultaneously gifting him with an abundance of male "companionship".

Same thing goes for nuns!!!

I also believe that any creator has gifted man with reason for a REASON. Free will is a tool, not a paradox.

[snoochie]

55. ALL Christians are 'cafeteria' Christians

unless they're sacrificing bulls and approving of slavery and all other such nonsense.

It's long past time that people realized that most aspects of religion are outdated. Then we can focus our energies on the parts that aren't.

[warrior1]

57. You know

the bible is all made up shit. They can shove their word where the sun don't shine.

[chicagiana]

65. Catholics even MORE so ...

Catholic is more "old school" than some other faiths. All those "reform" churches are pretty much ALL splinters of the Catholic faith.

But Catholics largely DO NOT BELIEVE what the priest tells them. Nor do they believe what is taught to them in catechism. They believe what they want to.