Labelling others

[Dave_UK]

Am writing on this sub-forum 'cos I don't want the ladies to see any mention of "Docking" - which is mentioned later! And As you might already have gathered from my posts - it is all a bit "academic" for me due to age/condition/circumstances.

Ginger on the general discussion forum started it off with her post ' Pope tells a gay man "God made you like this and loves you like this!" '

I added my two-pennyworth there, by posting that in essence, anything that departs from God's ordinances e.g. when He told Adam/Eve to "Go forth and multiply!" - is sinful.  So anything that prevents (or takes steps to avoid) that "multiplication" is sinful!?  Um! What about the use of condoms - to ensure we chaps can get pleasure without what might be "inconvenient" results?  So "All have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God" - is it down to a matter of how big is our sin - teeny-weeny bit of sin,  a bit bigger sin - or something more revolting to most of us.  We often label others according to how bad we think they are, ignoring "the plank in our own eyes".

Basically when it comes to sexual matters - as you well know, we ought to bear in mind what Jesus told us "Be ye holy even as I am holy.".  I find it quite interesting how this matter seems to be considered in the O.T.  - in for instance, David's comments to Ahimelech when he and his then small band of hungry followers) were being hunted down by Saul - e.g. in 1 Samuel 21:1-6 David says "Women have been denied us hitherto, when I have been on campaign, even an ordinary campaign, and the young men's bodies have remained holy; and how much more they will be holy today?" - in eating the sacred bread.  So it seems that in those days, intimate contact with a woman rendered a man un-holy (or unclean, as for a woman in menstruation)!!!

On the matter of Gay men - a lot of us jump to the hasty conclusion that Gay men always participate in anal sex/sodomy - think there are lesser sinful activities that they engage in, and are "turned off" by the "shitty" practice of stuffing their erect penis up their compliant companion's backside! This is obviously treating the compliant partner as a substitute woman - and in Leviticus God makes it plain that if a man sleeps with another man, as if a woman, that is an abomination" and that they shall be put to death. Yes I know sin is still sin, no matter what it's degree!  But do we need to be "harsh" in condemning others when we are not so pure ourselves! ("Let he who is without sin throw the first stone"!)

There are the other (less sinful?) activities that gay men indulge in - for the same reason that heteros do - to obtain pleasure and hopefully reciprocate that, while expressing deep affection for their partner.  Such activities as Skin-to-skin contact while "frotting" together to relieve sexual tension.  Or maybe mutual masturbation - which I understand has now been taken a stage further by "docking".  In which an "uncut" chap retracts his foreskin and one places his glans area on top of his mates, then slides/stretches his foreskin over  the 2 glans penis heads, before doing the usual "jerk-off" actions.  Think this has been voted as the most popular Gay activity - the ultimate in "togetherness"!?  ( I did read somewhere of the hilarious incident in which insufficient "lube" was used and the chaps found it impossible to "uncouple" themselves - requiring an urgent visit to the emergency room and an unplanned circumcision to separate them!).

Then, of course, we have the more serious matter of "comradeship" (mutual delight of kindred spirits - admiring each other's qualities), in which at it's deeper level the affection between 2 men, may be such that they are prepared to sacrifice their lives for each other, if in terrible circumstances.  This verges on Jesus declaration "Greater love hath no man, than he who lays down his life for his friends" David was not slow to proclaim his grief at his friend Jonathon's death in Samuel 1:26 " I grieve for you Jonathon my brother; dear and delightful you were to me; your love for me was wonderful, surpassing the love of women.

[Texas Conservative]

Too much info.

[soterion]

Dave_UK,

I wouldn't say, "...anything that departs from God's ordinances e.g. when He told Adam/Eve to "Go forth and multiply!" - is sinful.  So anything that prevents (or takes steps to avoid) that "multiplication" is sinful!" When God gave that command to Adam and Eve, the land was still empty of people. Steps need to be taken because of overpopulation anyway. Maybe Thanos has the right idea...

Sexual activity that should be considered sinful is any that is stated as immoral in scriptural, such as fornication, adultery, and homosexuality. What decides is if the two are male and female and if they are married to each other. Any sexual activity outside of a M/F marriage is immorality.

Basically when it comes to sexual matters - as you well know, we ought to bear in mind what Jesus told us "Be ye holy even as I am holy."

Yes, there were certain law given standards in the O.T., but in 1 Corinthians 7:2-5, Paul wrote that each person ought to have his and her own spouse to avoid fornication, and to have a fulfilling relationship so as to avoid adultery.

On the matter of Gay men - a lot of us jump to the hasty conclusion that Gay men always participate in anal sex/sodomy - think there are lesser sinful activities that they engage in...

I don't jump to any particular conclusion, except that any sexual contact between two of the same sex is wrong. Any sexual activity between two of the same sex is seeking physical satisfaction in a way that is outside of a M/F marriage, thus I wouldn't label some of those activities as lesser sinful activities.

Then, of course, we have the more serious matter of "comradeship" (mutual delight of kindred spirits - admiring each others qualities), in which at it's deeper level the affection between 2 men, may be such that they are prepared to sacrifice their lives for each other, if in terrible circumstances.  This verges on Jesus declaration "Greater love hath no man, than he who lays down his life for his friends" David was not slow to proclaim his grief at his friend Jonathon's death in Samuel 1:26 " I grieve for you Jonathon my brother; dear and delightful you were to me; your love for me was wonderful, surpassing the love of women.

I don't consider anything here to be on the same level or category with the rest of your post. Men can be comrades and love each other in a brotherly fashion, but that has zip to do with any sexual activity or even repressed gay tendencies. I apologize if I am missing your point; I just don't like it when David and Jonathan are brought into discussions like this. They were not gay and they had no sexual intimacy with each other.

I do agree that any judgments made against persons who engage in same sex unions ought to be measured in light of the fact that none of us are perfect and we all desperately need God's grace. I don't think anybody here "enjoys" pointing the finger at others. My big hangup is when such unions are defended by those who claim the name of Jesus, or if any claim people are born that way.

There is a time and place to point out things for the safeguarding of others. In the first chapter of Romans, Paul goes into detail that both male and female gay activity is wrong. Paul hits on this early, I believe, so as to protect the church in Rome against what might have been a strong temptation for some. When Paul wrote this, homosexuality was common and acceptable in the Empire, particularly in Rome and by Nero. In a city where the Emperor demands worship as God and who is openly sexually immoral, it makes sense that Paul explicitly warns the church to avoid that sexual immorality.

In our current culture where the government lifted the ban on same sex marriages, we need to be reminded to not follow suit. Just because the government sanctions it, and even if some of our elected officials practice it, we need to recognize it for what it is and say no. We need to go so far as Paul and encourage each other to resist things that will gradually be considered more and more normal as time goes on.

[Dave_UK]

Dave_UK,

I wouldn't say, "...anything that departs from God's ordinances e.g. when He told Adam/Eve to "Go forth and multiply!" - is sinful.  So anything that prevents (or takes steps to avoid) that "multiplication" is sinful!" When God gave that command to Adam and Eve, the land was still empty of people. Steps need to be taken because of overpopulation anyway. Maybe Thanos has the right idea...

Sexual activity that should be considered sinful is any that is stated as immoral in scriptural, such as fornication, adultery, and homosexuality. What decides is if the two are male and female and if they are married to each other. Any sexual activity outside of a M/F marriage is immorality.

Yes, there were certain law given standards in the O.T., but in 1 Corinthians 7:2-5, Paul wrote that each person ought to have his and her own spouse to avoid fornication, and to have a fulfilling relationship so as to avoid adultery.

I don't jump to any particular conclusion, except that any sexual contact between two of the same sex is wrong. Any sexual activity between two of the same sex is seeking physical satisfaction in a way that is outside of a M/F marriage, thus I wouldn't label some of those activities as lesser sinful activities.

I don't consider anything here to be on the same level or category with the rest of your post. Men can be comrades and love each other in a brotherly fashion, but that has zip to do with any sexual activity or even repressed gay tendencies. I apologize if I am missing your point; I just don't like it when David and Jonathan are brought into discussions like this. They were not gay and they had no sexual intimacy with each other.

I do agree that any judgments made against persons who engage in same sex unions ought to be measured in light of the fact that none of us are perfect and we all desperately need God's grace. I don't think anybody here "enjoys" pointing the finger at others. My big hangup is when such unions are defended by those who claim the name of Jesus, or if any claim people are born that way.

There is a time and place to point out things for the safeguarding of others. In the first chapter of Romans, Paul goes into detail that both male and female gay activity is wrong. Paul hits on this early, I believe, so as to protect the church in Rome against what might have been a strong temptation for some. When Paul wrote this, homosexuality was common and acceptable in the Empire, particularly in Rome and by Nero. In a city where the Emperor demands worship as God and who is openly sexually immoral, it makes sense that Paul explicitly warns the church to avoid that sexual immorality.

In our current culture where the government lifted the ban on same sex marriages, we need to be reminded to not follow suit. Just because the government sanctions it, and even if some of our elected officials practice it, we need to recognize it for what it is and say no. We need to go so far as Paul and encourage each other to resist things that will gradually be considered more and more normal as time goes on.

I don't disagree with much of your reply - even at the places where you remind me of my error!

On the easy availability of contraception (avoiding unfortunate occurrences) - I would point out that it can all too easily become an "aid" to fornication - leading to casual habitual sin. 

I found it difficult to suppress a chuckle over those 2 gay chaps unable to de-couple, trying to walk sideways to the ambulance waiting to take them to the E.R. It reminded me of Paul's statement in Romans 1:27 about such persons receiving in their bodies the fitting wage for such perversion - at least one of the pair will see the life-long evidence of their "Docking" mishap.

On the issue of comradeship - think you did miss my point - it was merely to mention "the other end of the spectrum" of male relationships.  Of course there would have been no sexual undertone between David and Jonathon - because David was chosen by the Lord "as a man after My own heart" - but there were deep emotions involved in that they fell upon each others shoulders and wept together.   BTW Having an "ear to the ground" to find out "what's going on" - I found that a certain website promoting "G0Y" (gay, but not into anal sex) had "hijacked" the "David and Jonathon" story in the Bible - to falsely suggest that there were sexual undertones to their relationship!    Deception is the devil's tool !

On your point about our governments going in the wrong direction - I could not agree more whole-heartedly.  We have crazy "un-thought through" ramifications resulting from much that those in authority over us decide.  It's all P.C. and "Inclusivity" mad - and we shall all pay for that folly (maybe in the not too distant future)!

[Carey]

Of course there would have been no sexual undertone between David and Jonathon - because David was chosen by the Lord "as a man after My own heart" -

Not so sure I would find that a convincing argument, being "as a man after My own heart" certainly did not exclude sinful behaviour on the part of David.  That said, I do not see the relationship as a gay one, but, even if it were, "It is alright cause David did it." is not a valid argument, given some of David's other transgressions.

[Dave_UK]

Not so sure I would find that a convincing argument, being "as a man after My own heart" certainly did not exclude sinful behaviour on the part of David.  That said, I do not see the relationship as a gay one, but, even if it were, "It is alright cause David did it." is not a valid argument, given some of David's other transgressions.

Hmmm! Yes - guess you are right about that!  I had forgotten about David's later transgressions and the Lord's punishment of terrible family problems with his sons (rape, usurp attempt etc,).  Also there was his proud wrong-headed determination to count men available for military purposes - bringing trouble to his people.  In fact I think someone made the point that David was not a good father to his sons.  Even Solomon, gifted as he was and making a fine start - "drifted" away from the Lord in trying to please his (too) many wives coming from ungodly nations, joining in their "worship" - resulting in the Lord's punishment of terrible national division.  So in that sense - the supposedly wisest man on Earth was a fool.  What had hopefully been a "godly family line" through David, quickly went downhill.  There was that nasty episode of one of Solomon's brothers asking for Abishag the Shunamite maiden (who had kept the aged David warm in his final years) as a wife.  Poor Bathsheba got embroiled in the story and Solomon's furious response to his brother's request - ordering his execution. What a mess!