|
|
|
|
Old truth in young gays
By DENNIS ROGERS, Staff Writer
Did God make a mistake? I don't mean with giraffes, penguins or even the 1976 AMC Pacer. He obviously created those for the giggles.
I mean with gay people.
There's a proposal before the State Board of Education that says school guidance counselors and social workers should know how to deal with all sorts of discrimination students may face, including sex roles as well as race, creed and national origin.
Professionals say it would help counselors and social workers do a better job if universities would include sexual orientation and gender identity training in their education counseling curriculum.
That reasonable suggestion set those who proudly proclaim themselves guardians of "traditional family values" howling with outrage.
"The North Carolina Family Policy Council agrees wholeheartedly that each person should be respected," read one letter to the state school board. "However, not all forms of diversity should be supported."
Neat trick, that. It's difficult to be respectful to those you consider teenage sex perverts.
So the question remains: Did God make a mistake when he made gay people? If he created everything else, as the anti-evolutionists on the religious right argue, wouldn't that include homosexuals, too?
And would he have made so many of them if he didn't love them? I mean, they're everywhere. You can hardly swing a cat without hitting one. Not that you should do that.
If God didn't make them, how'd they get here? No gay person I've known said they woke up one morning and decided to play for the other team, so to speak. From what I've observed and read, sexual orientation is determined before birth. Choice has nothing to do with it, the smart people say.
It pretty much comes down to this: You're born gay or you're not. You may fake it for a while, but inside, you know.
If God made some people gay, do we really want to risk his considerable wrath by condemning them? Seems a dangerous thing to do, given the comments by some fundamentalist religious leaders lately that God sends natural disasters to punish people who irritate him.
As Noah asked his neighbor in a Bill Cosby routine, "How long can you tread water?"
Yes, I know, there's that Leviticus chapter 20, verse 13 thing in the Bible about how gay people are an abomination.
Interesting cat, Leviticus. If he got it right, God is also not crazy about tattoos (19:28), pork chops (11:7-8) or fried shrimp platters (11:10-11). And woe unto neighbors who get a little too friendly (20:10).
And what was it Jesus said about homosexuality?
That's right, nothing.
Imagine that. Maybe when Jesus, who went out of his way to embrace societal outcasts like Mary Magdalene, said, "Judge not, lest ye be judged," he really meant what he said. And what was it he said about children? Something about "Suffer the little children to come unto me"?
Wise counselors have been doing that for years, lending a sympathetic ear and offering compassionate advice to questioning kids. The state should give them the help they need to do so with all God's children, not just the ones approved by the Family Policy Council.
Dennis Rogers can be reached at 829-4750 or drogers@newsobserver.com.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
timmy
|
 |
Has no life at all |
Location: UK, in Devon
Registered: February 2003
Messages: 13796
|
|
|
One very interesting article. But he is using logic. And, as we know, logic has very little to do with radical views or dogma.
I have obviously chosen to be gay for some perverse reason of my own, and thus deserve etenral damnation. I have chosen a hard road through life (hmm, didn't the puritans do just that?) and my hard road, unlike the puritans seems set toend in eternal damnation.
But the thing is I think God truly does not mind whether we are gay or not. If he minded we would not be it!
Author of Queer Me! Halfway Between Flying and Crying - the true story of life for a gay boy in the Swinging Sixties in a British all male Public School
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You say you had chosen to be gay, but I have always been gay and fell in love in kindergarten...His name was Howard Thomas, and he was blonde. I have had a few girls to keep my winkey happy, but it had nothing to do with love
My God is a God of love and forgivness and I think he loves us all and is not to concerned what we do with our winkes, as long as we are loving and careing. Warren asked me to post this for him, and I found it interesting but light hearted, and mirrored my feelings about God and fundamentalists.::-) ::-)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
timmy
|
|
Has no life at all |
Location: UK, in Devon
Registered: February 2003
Messages: 13796
|
|
|
I think you missed the irony in my words 
Author of Queer Me! Halfway Between Flying and Crying - the true story of life for a gay boy in the Swinging Sixties in a British all male Public School
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
We yankee's are known for that....;-D
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ok now, speak for yourself Uncle Jim. I'm a yankee and I didn't miss the irony! 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You must be one of those Damn Yankees's I've heard about.  ) Maybe you'll grow out of it...hehehe
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
timmy
|
|
Has no life at all |
Location: UK, in Devon
Registered: February 2003
Messages: 13796
|
|
|
But what of Howard? You can't leave us dangling!
Author of Queer Me! Halfway Between Flying and Crying - the true story of life for a gay boy in the Swinging Sixties in a British all male Public School
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I was madly in something with cute little Howard through the third grade. I was more or less his shadow, and I'm sure he must have wondered how I could always be there every time he turned around. We were kind of friends, if you can be friends with as weird a acting kid as must have been. I was sure I would die when he moved away, but I survived and finally managed to forget him, until in my teens I saw Johnny Sheifield on the screen playing Tarzan's little "Boy". OMG it was the spitting image of my little Howard, and almost naked...OMG!
Needless to say, I saw every "Tarzan" movie and "Jungle Boy" movie after that. I sometimes wonder how many gallons I got rid of while thinking of my Howard and Johnny boy. Good night sweet Howard where ever you are, kiss, kiss.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
For some strange reason, I always seemed to sweat a lot when I thought about cute Howard...hummmmmm::-)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
For some strange reason, I always seemed to sweat a lot when I thought about cute Howard...hummmmmm::-)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Sorry Timmy, I must have hit that button twice. But anyway, we midwesterners (USA) never did go in much for irony, I think that's why we took so to Permanent Press and Ployester. You folks must go for cotton and such. 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I also found an interesting article.. I read it and quickly copied it to my blog, and emailed it out to anyone and everyone. (I was informed last night that my best friend printed it out and passed it out around school.. and people actually asked for more copies to distribute around even more!)
(Here it is! )
An engineering professor is treating her husband, a loan officer, to dinner for finally giving in to her pleas to shave off the scraggly beard he grew on vacation. His favorite restaurant is a casual place where they both feel comfortable in slacks and cotton/polyester-blend golf shirts. But, as always, she wears the gold and pearl pendant he gave her the day her divorce decree was final. They're laughing over their menus because they know he always ends up diving into a giant plate of ribs but she won't be talked into anything more fattening than shrimp.
Quiz: How many biblical prohibitions are they violating? Well, wives are supposed to be 'submissive' to their husbands (I Peter 3:1). And all women are forbidden to teach men (I Timothy 2:12), wear gold or pearls (I Timothy 2:9) or dress in clothing that 'pertains to a man' (Deuteronomy 22:5). Shellfish and pork are definitely out (Leviticus 11:7, 10) as are usury (Deuteronomy 23:19), shaving (Leviticus 19:27) and clothes of more than one fabric (Leviticus 19:19). And since the Bible rarely recognizes divorce, they're committing adultery, which carries the rather harsh penalty of death by stoning (Deuteronomy 22:22).
So why are they having such a good time? Probably because they wouldn't think of worrying about rules that seem absurd, anachronistic or - at best - unrealistic. Yet this same modern-day couple could easily be among the millions of Americans who never hesitate to lean on the Bible to justify their own anti-gay attitudes.
Deb Price
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
marc
|
 |
Needs to get a life! |
Registered: March 2003
Messages: 4729
|
|
|
3948983498349384639486539483893498763498
But I might have missed one or two
Life is great for me... Most of the time... But then I meet people online... Very few are real friends... Many say they are but know nothing of what it means... Some say they are, but are so shallow...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Interesting... I am currently in the process of reading the New Testament in hopes that the knowledge will aid me in a successful protest against the absurd christian influence in my public school.. I've found Jesus to be far more interesting than i was led to believe.. Its hard to believe that holy trinity are all one, when you see the sharp contrast between the god in the old testament and the compassionate Jesus in the new..
This post obviously came out of nowhere.. but i felt it worth mentioning.. or something.:-[
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
marc
|
|
Needs to get a life! |
Registered: March 2003
Messages: 4729
|
|
|
If that is the case then you should read the gospels that were omitted from the bible.
google up the "gospel of Thomas" and the "gospel of philip"
Life is great for me... Most of the time... But then I meet people online... Very few are real friends... Many say they are but know nothing of what it means... Some say they are, but are so shallow...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
There were dozens of gospels at one time, all as valid as each other. It took hundreds of years before anyone decided what would be canon and what would be discarded, and that person was not God.
I don't believe for a second that the original Matthew, Mark, Luke and John would have been as self-consistent as they are now, either. Even assuming that the events they describe are true, natural human error should have caused many more discrepancies than there are. One can only conclude that the entire bible has been censored and whitewashed many times. There's really no way of knowing what the real Jesus said, if he even existed.
If you want to read about it, don't read the Da Vinci Code, though. It's a load of tripe and it insults an its readers' intelligence.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
marc
|
|
Needs to get a life! |
Registered: March 2003
Messages: 4729
|
|
|
Dozens of gospels?
Would you care to list them?
Life is great for me... Most of the time... But then I meet people online... Very few are real friends... Many say they are but know nothing of what it means... Some say they are, but are so shallow...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
marc
|
|
Needs to get a life! |
Registered: March 2003
Messages: 4729
|
|
|
So that would be a no?
Life is great for me... Most of the time... But then I meet people online... Very few are real friends... Many say they are but know nothing of what it means... Some say they are, but are so shallow...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Did you actually read the linked article?
I can list the gospels mentioned in the article but it seems rather a waste of time given that you could just follow the link.
I bow down to your superior wisdom if you are prepared to refute it. I feign knowledge on a lot of things by referencing wikipedia.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
marc
|
|
Needs to get a life! |
Registered: March 2003
Messages: 4729
|
|
|
Well actually I did read the link....
I've seen it before.......
Not alot of credable information there I am afrade...
Life is great for me... Most of the time... But then I meet people online... Very few are real friends... Many say they are but know nothing of what it means... Some say they are, but are so shallow...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Credible in what sense?
I was under the impression that there were a lot of early Christian writings and whoever compiled the New Testament was responsible for restricting the canon to only a small subset of them, and probably heavily editing them for consistency, too.
That's basically all I know. I'd appreciate it if you could explain any further knowledge that you have. I'm not trying to refute or confirm anything -- I'm just interested.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Marc wrote:
> Well actually I did read the link.... I've seen it before....... Not alot of credable information there I am afrade...<
I, for one, would be very interested in reading Marc's detailed refutation of the Wikipedia article referenced by Deeej. To the best of my knowledge heretofore the information given there is accepted in reputable academic circles such as universities and colleges. (It may possibly be denied by some seminaries, but I have never seen such an academic denial from the faculty of a reputable seminary.)
The paradox has often been noted that the United States, founded in secularism, is now the most religiose country in Christendom, while England, with an established church headed by its constitutional monarch, is among the least. (Richard Dawkins, 2006)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
cossie
|
 |
On fire! |
Location: Exiled in North East Engl...
Registered: July 2003
Messages: 1699
|
|
|
I think I'm with Deeej, except that I don't understand his suggestion above that Christian history is irrelevant. I'm not a Christian, either (though I was once, and I still admire the language of the King James Bible and the ritual of the 1662 Prayer Book) but I certainly don't accept that examination of the beliefs that motivate a substantial chunk of the world's population can in any sense be irrelevant!
The determination of the 'canon' - the selection of writings comprised in our 'New Testament' - is an event shrouded in mystery in terms of the historical record. All we know for sure is that the selection crystallised at some time between the Council of Nicea and the schism between the Catholic and Greek Orthodox Churches - probably in the latter part of the fourth century. And, as Deeeej has said, it was a small selection from a very large body of writings. Realistically, the selection would be influenced at least as much by political as by theological considerations.
The Gospels of Philip and Thomas achieved notoriety through the relatively recent discovery of partial copies, but in the broader context they are only a small part of a much larger whole.
The early Church was highly political - it had to be, if it were to have any chance of exerting wide influence in the contemporary world - and I suspect (in company with many commentators better informed than I can ever hope to be!) that such planks of Christian faith as the Christmas Story (largely unique to Matthew's Gospel), the Virgin Birth and the Holy Trinity are political creations.
Nevertheless, I think the fundamental problem was the retention of the canonical validity of the Old Testament within the Christian Church; Jesus frequently diverged from Jewish orthodoxy (the parable of the Good Samaritan is an excellent illustration) and the core of his teaching was a new interpretation of what had gone before.
I don't doubt that Jesus existed, and I suspect that his claim to be the 'Son of God' (if indeed he made such a claim) was no more of an expression of his belief that he was the prophet of God. But he certainly changed the goalposts, and I see little logic in adhering to the previous rulebook. Furthermore, it is pretty well beyond doubt that the Jewish 'Yahweh', the Christian 'Jehovah' and the Muslim 'Allah' are all interpretations of the same entity.
And, for the record, I believe that Southern Baptist 'teaching' is simply a means of exerting political power for entirely selfish motives.
I just don't accept Marc's dismissal of the historical record. I suspect that I have less faith in the validity of Leviticus than he has, but I think that our defence lies more in historical analysis than in rote repetition of the obvious inconsistencies of the canonical text.
For a' that an' a' that,
It's comin' yet for a' that,
That man tae man, the worrld o'er
Shall brithers be, for a' that.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
To make the thread easier to follow:
Those who are interested in getting an impression of the scope of early Christian writings - canonical as well as extra-canonical - might care to visit this site: http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/?adword
The paradox has often been noted that the United States, founded in secularism, is now the most religiose country in Christendom, while England, with an established church headed by its constitutional monarch, is among the least. (Richard Dawkins, 2006)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
marc
|
|
Needs to get a life! |
Registered: March 2003
Messages: 4729
|
|
|
The quick of it.....
For the most part, the gospels exhibited on this site have been over the years (albeit early years) distorted, annotated, edited, rewritten and otherwise altered to address the (then) current needs of the church.
If the true message of the life of christ is to be represented in a text (the bible) then all pertinant information must be included, not just the writtings that are conveinent to their present agenda.
Therefore, it is the exclusion of some texts that places the included material under suspicion.
That is the point I was refering to.
Life is great for me... Most of the time... But then I meet people online... Very few are real friends... Many say they are but know nothing of what it means... Some say they are, but are so shallow...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
marc
|
|
Needs to get a life! |
Registered: March 2003
Messages: 4729
|
|
|
Ahhhh.....
But it's is not I that dissmissed the historical record.......
That I am afrade was done well before either of us ever walked on this little ball.
Life is great for me... Most of the time... But then I meet people online... Very few are real friends... Many say they are but know nothing of what it means... Some say they are, but are so shallow...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
marc
|
|
Needs to get a life! |
Registered: March 2003
Messages: 4729
|
|
|
Oh...... One more thing.....
Kevin was for 12 years a Southern Baptist Minister......
Life is great for me... Most of the time... But then I meet people online... Very few are real friends... Many say they are but know nothing of what it means... Some say they are, but are so shallow...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
timmy
|
|
Has no life at all |
Location: UK, in Devon
Registered: February 2003
Messages: 13796
|
|
|
Well the southern baptists are not known as a sect for embracing any other truths but their own, whether these are written in the mainstream and authorised new testament or outside it.
Kevy is an exception, of cousre
Author of Queer Me! Halfway Between Flying and Crying - the true story of life for a gay boy in the Swinging Sixties in a British all male Public School
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
marc
|
|
Needs to get a life! |
Registered: March 2003
Messages: 4729
|
|
|
I cured him.......
LOL
Life is great for me... Most of the time... But then I meet people online... Very few are real friends... Many say they are but know nothing of what it means... Some say they are, but are so shallow...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
cossie
|
|
On fire! |
Location: Exiled in North East Engl...
Registered: July 2003
Messages: 1699
|
|
|
Not at all sure what you mean here. There's plenty of unbiased historical research going on, not only into the Christian religion but into a wide range of other belief systems.
OK, the various religious establishments may seek to hijack or distort the results (dependent upon whether they contradict or support their approved dogma), but the results are no less valid and they DO have an effect. Fundamentalism may be a disease destroying the victim's ability to think, but not all churches carry the infection. In particular, the Anglican (Episcopalian) church, at least outside of the developing world, has moved a long way in recent years; many bishops have publicly supported the proposition that the Bible is full of over-enthusiastic storytelling and that such concepts as miracles and the virgin birth fall within that category.
If you dismiss the historical record, you surely surrender your right to argue the case?
For a' that an' a' that,
It's comin' yet for a' that,
That man tae man, the worrld o'er
Shall brithers be, for a' that.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
In reply to Cossie's "Eh?"
Is a maiden impregnated by the use of a turkey baster or a Doctor's syringe still a virgin? Intercourse has not taken place.
Virgin: A person who has not had sexual intercourse. A female animal that has never copulated.
If we can manage virgin births, I'm sure my God could do it better. My God created me the way I am, and God loves me....I'm not about to let some Baptist get me down.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
marc
|
|
Needs to get a life! |
Registered: March 2003
Messages: 4729
|
|
|
What I mean here is that the "historical record" has already been dissmissed.
Christianity as a political power in its early years made it clear that only writings that supported the then current aspirations of the church would be a part of the bible.
Life is great for me... Most of the time... But then I meet people online... Very few are real friends... Many say they are but know nothing of what it means... Some say they are, but are so shallow...
|
|
|
|
|
Goto Forum:
|
] 
A Place of Safety
Search
Help
Register
Login
Home
Re: an interesting artical 
Re: an interesting artical 
Re: an interesting artical 
