Off-Topic: Elton John today
 

Moderators, please move this thread to a 'General Discussion' or correct forum, I looked and couldn't find it, I'm sorry. I feel like I'm cheating on The Ledge, because today I felt compelled to register and post, for the first time, at another site, at eltonjohn.com because I wanted to support him. I suspect he's taking a lot of criticism about his Jesus comments released in the media today. (For those who don't know, Elton said his envisionment of Jesus is as a gay man who was compassionate, and the right-wingers are furious). I feel Elton did a good thing. I did mention, in a very roundabout way, Mick Fleetwood in my message at Elton's site, and I feel like sharing what I wrote, and again, please, moderators, if you get a chance, put this in the appopriate forum if there is one,
I don't want to upset anyone here. Thank You! PS- I know everyone won't agree with what I wrote, and what I did not reveal, but I wrote it as I felt it....
**
Thank You To Elton John from a Christian (posted 1/19/2010 on eltonjohn.com)

I am so pleased to be able to write my feelings about Elton's comments about Jesus being a compassionate homosexual. I am a Christian, and I think it is fantastic that Elton has opened dialogue about gays and Jesus, even though I am sadly already seeing bigotry and distortion in the media. I believe that every person of every sexual persuasion benefits from seeking a relationship with Jesus, and I believe that Jesus loves ALL who love Him and accept Him, those who try to put Him first in the way each believer conducts their lives. Some people just are gay, and gay people need to be able to identify with Jesus just as would any heterosexual.
Most white people seem to envision Jesus as white, which makes sense. There wasn't a ton of uproar in the '70s when some feminists needed to identify with Jesus as a female Savior, and many African Americans have an image of Jesus as black, because Jesus is their Messiah as well. So, I see it as a need to be closer with Him and identify and relate to Him. I don't see why it should be considered an 'insult' that a gay man would possibly see Jesus as someone who relates to homosexuals, or could have had homosexual tendencies. It may well not be a stretch that Jesus loves and approves of homosexuals, because He himself created gay people, meaning those who have no choice about their sexuality.
Most of us have a family member who is gay, and I think we wish all of God's blessings for those we love who just happen not to be able to have sexual and/or romantic attraction to the opposite sex. IT HAPPENS. You can't throw a surprise party for Jesus, He knows all and still loves those who truly love him. It's a 'come as you are' proposition being a Christian, you can be who you are, so long as you put effort into learning The Bible and seek the Salvation that does come to anyone who in their heart wants to love The Lord and does love Him and does the best that they can. He is not a God for only heterosexuals, and I think Elton John's comment(s) were brave and insightful, and I believe Jesus is GLAD that Elton has opened a dialogue, because Jesus does need to be on our minds and in our discussions.
The link I saw online to a British tabloid used quotation marks when referring to Elton's "husband" which is an indication of a biased slant, no quotation marks would be used if, oh, Mick Fleetwood referred to his "wife", and Jesus does not want us judging each other.
Jesus certainly does not want anyone who loves Him and wants Him in their lives to be told they aren't "deserving" because of their sexuality, because in actuality, in Christian doctrine, NO-ONE is deserving of Salvation or fellowship with The Lord, it is a blessing, it is a GRACE that is given to anyone who sincerely desires to be One with The Father and The Son.
I have read through and made notations in all 582 pages of the King James New Testament, and homosexuality itself is not enough to keep a person who loves Christ from being accepted by Him. --
continued in next message, out of room- but THANK YOU ELTON.
...(to end)
I think Elton John provided a valuable service in reminding the world that gay people think about Jesus and need to relate to Him. Let the judgment of all matters, including sexual preference, not be made against each other, but made by our Creator. Love Jesus and love one another.
By coincidence, I went out to Target and bought the 1970-2002 Greatest Hits cd, today. I have a lifetime of great music to appreciate tonight. Again, I also appreciate the good that may come from his comments. I think Elton John is a brave man, and it's necessary for gay people to feel comfortable to discuss Jesus Christ, though traditionalists want to deprive gays of a union with God. Elton's comments will ruffle the self-righteous anti-gay bigots, but hey, I fully believe that Jesus himself is a liberal. He'll welcome anyone who comes to Him.
It's about time gay people claim what is theirs, and I think that Jesus himself is smiling down on Elton John today, saying "Yes, I indeed do love my gay sons and daughters and only want them to love Me, and it's up to Me to sort out the rest!"
Well done, Elton John. A true national (and probably international) dialogue about something Eternal, something that matters has begun, different than the plastic surgery celebrities du jour and a golfer with an overactive libido making a public statement, just filling up minds without feeding anyone's Spirit.
Substance at it's best. If EJ reads these messages and sees mine, just know there's a Christian out there who thinks you have reason to really be proud, do not let the right-wing extremists get you down, you did a good thing, and I understand and appreciate your comments.

Thank you- I am an open gay male, and I also have faith. That is just really great to hear other people supporting other people!

It's true if you seek Him, you will find Him and if people read the Bible they will get to know the real Jesus. He wasn't and isn't something we create in our minds of what God is - the white man, the black man, the feminist or the liberal... If anyone is interested in His life they should research for themselves by reading His autobiography. I recommend the New Living Translation, which is much easier to read than the old King James.

Start in the book of John.

"And you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free.” - Jesus (John 8:32)

Good for you, my friend. Way to show caring, compassion, and tolerance. And I mean that sincerely.

Romans 5:8
But God Demonstrates His own love toward us, in that while we
were still sinners, Christ died for us.

Romans 6:1
What shall we say then? Shall we continue in sin that grace may
abound? Certainly not! How shall we who died to sin live any longer
in it?

John Chapter 8 An adultress faces Jesus.
The scribes and the Pharisees brought a woman to Jesus who had been
caught in the act of adultery. And testing Jesus they said "Now Moses,
in the law, commanded us that such should be stoned. But what do You
say we do?" And as they continued asking Him, He raised Himself up and
said unto them, "He who is without sin among you, let him cast the first
stone."

And then Jesus said "Woman, where are those accusers of yours? Has no
one condemned you?" She said "No, one Lord." And Jesus said to her "Neither
do I condemn you; go and sin no more.

Yes, we come to Jesus as sinners, but no where in the Bible does it state
that we are to continue dwelling in sin. The verses I pulled out of the book
of John backs this up. Especially verse 11 "go and sin no more".

You didn't particularly call me a "right winger", but everyone that thinks
homosexuality is a sin doesn't hate you. Nor do they want to control you
life. Many will tell you the truth because they are worried about where your
sin (all sin) will take you. And that's Hell.

Even if you don't believe in Hell, can you imagine not telling someone that
they need to be saved or need to repent? Love is the reason that some Christians
will try and lead you to Christ.

I have my own sins, so I'm not throwing stones at you. And I know that many on
this board are homosexuals by their own admittance. Some of my favorites on this
board are very open about it. I hold no hatred for them (or any others on this
board). But I wouldn't lie about my thoughts on the subject just to make friends.
And I do believe it is a sin. And I wouldn't want to be Elton John in the afterlife.
Christ commited no sin, He was and will always be perfect.

This is just my opinion, but I don't think people understand what it's like to be a gay male in today's society. For me, it gets harder almost everyday, realizing new challenges and new discrimination. Maybe I will just never understand why we can't just love each other, regardless of religion. Still yet good for Elton John for speaking about that.

I agree with you that the world would be a better place if people would not have hatred toward each other based on religious or sexuality biases. What confuses me a lot is that Christianity goes against itself so often and judges others when the bible says that they are to 'Judge not, lest ye be judged'. I don't base my liking of others on anything other than that they treat me how they would want to be treated.

^ Good for you :thumbsup: that's very respectable of you.

It's also stated in Leviticus "......and the swine, though it divides the hoof, having cloven hooves, yet does not chew the cud, is unclean to you." (Leviticus 11:7)

As you can see, the book of Leviticus also prohibits the eating of pork (a swine is a pig). Of course, fundamentalists do not choose to use this verse to preach against eating pork. Sadly, however, they have no problem abusing the Bible to condemn gay and lesbian people. Remember, it's about their personal prejudice against gay people, not about a true desire to understand what the Bible actually says.




Fundamentalists also like to use Leviticus 18:22 to justify their anti-gay prejudice. That verse says, "You shall not lie with a male as with a woman. It is an abomination." Perhaps you have heard some people refer to gay people as an "abomination." They get the idea directly from Leviticus 18:22. But did you know...

The Bible says that eating shrimp and lobster is an abomination:
"But all in the seas or in the rivers that do not have fins and scales, all that move in the water or any living thing which is in the water, they are an abomination to you." (Leviticus 11:10)

"They (shellfish) shall be an abomination to you; you shall not eat their flesh, but you shall regard their carcasses as an abomination." (Leviticus 11:11)

"Whatever in the water does not have fins or scales; that shall be an abomination to you." (Leviticus 11:12)

I was actually very surprised when I was reading the bible and came across this. I brought it up to a pastor, and he acted awkward about, and answered none of my questions. The God Delusion by Richard Dawkins is an incredible book, and addresses this directly. Everyone should read it, regardless of religion. It's not just an atheist's book, as most people seem to think.

What happens most of the time is that people skirt around the issues which directly affect them and cannot come up with an answer. The above exercise proves that anti-gay fundamentalists selectively quote the Bible. They enthusiastically and openly embrace those parts of the Bible which affirm and justify their own personal, pre-existing prejudice against gay people, while declining to become as enthusiastic about verses like the ones listed above.

Most of the time someone will tell you the pork/fish thing was in the "old" Testament and things have changed with the "new' testament.

Interesting. Do you know the reason why the new testament okays the eating of pork? I noticed you only quoted the old testament and was curious if you were aware of the references in the new testament which describes the new covenant.

At any rate, pork is unhealthy for you --- and if people would stop looking at the Bible as a lists of "I can'ts" and instead as a book of instruction they would realize that the laws and rules that were put into place were for people's own protection.

I don't like when a star wants to make controversy with his ideas. I'm not sure if Elton is looking for this, or was just authentic. Saying Jesus is gay will make upset lot of people. The topic is complicated, and we (all the humanity) will never agree 100%

Why he says that to the press? I don't find it necessary. And I want to make clear that I don't consider saying he was gay is an insult. Not at all.

I just think what I think about Jesus, God, and everything in life. And believe it's a lot different from what the church says. But I'm not looking for controversy. I love Elton but this time I don't think he did the right thing.

This thread is interesting to me because in my line of work, everyone is so tolerant, sometimes nauseatingly so. :) Seriously though, I live in The South where intolerance is the norm, There are so many openly gay people where I work; I have lost count. And I know they love working where we do because they can be who they are and not feel all weird about it.

Oh, and I have always loved Elton John, especially as a child. I remember when I found out he was gay (as a kid) and thinking, "what's gay?" Didn't he have a wife at one point and people were speculating that she was a man, or is my memory going places on me?

You made some very good points about celebrities creating controversy.

But, the "church" is really not an institution or a building - the church itself is the body of believers in Christ. People are in error when they mistake a church or a denominational doctrine for the word of God. This is why people should study the Bible for themselves if they are truly interested and not just go by what anyone else thinks or says. You get into a big mess when you do that. After all, it's not someone's else's faith/belief that will you through life - it's your own. So, make it personal. Christianity is about relationship with God through Jesus and with others, by serving and caring for one another.

I totally agree with everything you're saying, and I'm a gay man. How can Elton say in one line that he hates fame... and in the next line make some huge inflammatory proclamation bound to send out ripples? The answer is, he still very much loves fame. I don't know... everyone has their own way of approaching religion, spirituality, etc. My relationship with my beliefs is extremely private to me... like a marriage. I tend to think anyone who wears anything on their sleeves, be it their sexuality, their religious beliefs, whatever... has some unresolved issues of their own. There's definitely a difference between openness and wearing things on your sleeve, too. But, this is just my way of approaching things... to each their own, I say! :D

Louie, great points as well. I am a Christian but I certainly don't want anyone to be so turned off by my beliefs that they don't want to talk to me or think of me as a hater of anything. I don't believe hate produces any kind of good whatsoever.

Please note that this was required by God of His people in the Old Testament.
He set up many laws to keep His people pure. As pigs were seen as animals that
ate garbage etc. God called them unclean. Pigs/pork was not an acceptable
sacrifice for the attonement for sins. However, in the New Testament, this law
was "lifted." Because of Jesus' death on the cross (and resurrection),
sacrifices were no longer needed as Jesus was the final sacrifice and faith in
Him was the only way man could be pure before God. It was no longer necessary
for God's people to leave by these strict rules. God declares this once
unclean food clean in the following passage in a dream to Peter.
Acts 11:4-10
"4Peter began and explained everything to them precisely as it had happened:
5"I was in the city of Joppa praying, and in a trance I saw a vision. I saw
something like a large sheet being let down from heaven by its four corners,
and it came down to where I was. 6I looked into it and saw four-footed animals
of the earth, wild beasts, reptiles, and birds of the air. 7Then I heard a
voice telling me, 'Get up, Peter. Kill and eat.'
8"I replied, 'Surely not, Lord! Nothing impure or unclean has ever entered my
mouth.'
9"The voice spoke from heaven a second time, 'Do not call anything impure that
God has made clean.' 10This happened three times, and then it was all pulled up
to heaven again."

And what kind of sanctimonious bull**** is that? That you are somehow so chaste and pure of thought that you can go around judging others and deeming who will/will not go to your so-called "hell?" Really? Is it still the Spanish Inquisition? You know what? Please stop worrying about others' souls and leave them be. Worry about your own conduct and the way you appear to sneer down at others. Believe it or not, we will all survive and live our lives merrily without your divine judgment of our ways. :rolleyes:

Thanks for tolerating this thread!
I'd like to answer iamnotafraid, and thank him for the Scriptures, many of which I am familiar with. There's so much to absorb, it takes a lifetime.
Here's my take on 'staying in sin', as you put it. It isn't possible for any human not to sin. I was gay before I became a Christian, and did, in many ways, live a sinful life, but my sins were not because of being gay. I've been born-again for nine years. I'm still homosexual. I'm on my second Bible now, nearly 1300 pages and haven't begun my page-by-page copying of written passages and written meditation on those passages. It took me about 3 years to do so with the 562 page King James version, and it was at times daunting, but it was also very freeing and life-affirming. Of the 29 books of the New Testament, I found inspiration especially from Acts, Proverbs, Psalms and Hebrews.
In my reading, I was very much affected by the wording "homosexual offender"--- (as in 'the homosexual offender shall not enter the Kingdom of God'). Notice it did not say 'the homosexual shall not enter the Kingdom of God'--
So, one interpretation of several that I have, is that a homosexual offender is-- someone who offends a homosexual! Like gaybashers, homophobes...They won't enter the Kingdom of God. So, they should be more careful of how they treat men that God himself created. I also interpret it to mean that some homosexuals DO offend God. So do some heterosexuals.
Now, I do believe that before my salvation, I was guilty of amoral and at times immoral conduct in how I lived as a gay man. That has changed. God is first with me, and any relationship I may have will have to be with a man who believes in and has accepted Jesus. Then only could I have expectations of a lasting relationship, one that God is overseeing. It hasn't happened yet. It may never happen. But that doesn't mean I can retry heterosexuality and make it work. In fact, it would be sinful for me to betray a woman (again) by trying to be something I just am not.
I am as He made me. You may be able to find scripture that states homosexuality is a sin; there is a potential for sinfulness in heterosexual lust, in all sexuality. Why homosexuality is still such an issue, I think, speaks more about the persons objecting, than of the actual act, or the way Jesus views it. That in itself is a lesson to those who take such issue with gays and it's a continuing lesson for me, and certainly I don't have all the answers and I'm still learning.
But, in accepting and receiving Jesus as my Savior, I'm not destined for Hell, which I certainly do believe is true, Hell exists. I have died to self and sin. I do seek God every day of my life. I am not enslaved anymore. I'm saved.
But, I will be a student of Christianity for the rest of my life, I will continue to grow in faith and to do so, I need to read and absorb New Testaments, Old Testaments, attend Baptist, Catholic, Methodist and churches of all denominations, to find where I belong. I have a very hard time with organized religion, but I don't give up. My relationship with Jesus is the single most important decision I have made in my life.
"I am not afraid"... I will go to Heaven.
Even if I s*** c***.
Sorry for the vulgar (edited) ending of this message, but imagine how you'd feel if you were told the only reason you were going to Hell was because your inclination, your personal truth, your instinct, was to have sexual relations with a woman. It would be preposterous.

Me so chaste and pure? Did you really get that from what I wrote?
I wrote to the best of my ability not to sound judgemental. I wrote
about "my own sins". Without all the details I'm going through a horrible
time dealing with a family member. And right now I think I hate that person.
I believe it is one of the worst sins to commit, hatred for one's on brother. So
you're very wrong about me.

All sins lead to Hell. You might choose not to believe in such a place. And
the Lord has given you that right, or freedom to choose.

What type of person would I be, or any Christian for that matter, and just
pretended everything's going to be okay no matter what sin is committed?
Christ died in our place to save us from sin, yours and mine.

If you think I'm a horrible person I can't change that. If you look through
my post on this board I doubt you find little if any hate. Most of my post
are meant to be humorous. The reason I finally responded to this particular
thread was because of the blasphemy in Elton John's statement about Christ.

Nikolaj you are more than welcome for the Bible verses. They were mostly
from the "NEW KING JAMES VERSION".

I'm glad you are studying the Bible. And like you I'm still learning too.
And you're absolutely right that heterosexuals can offend God by committing
sin, just the same as homosexuals. The other poster seemed to miss the fact
that I said "all sin".

I'm also glad you read my post and didn't seem to think I was saying I'm better
than anyone else. I struggle as much or more than anyone on this board. And
most times, right or wrong I stay out of these serious discussions. But I was highly
offended by what was said about Christ. He paid such a huge price for us all, more
than our human minds can comprehend. When someone blasphemes against him
it hurts.

Well, you're welcome. But, it was very snarky and deceptive the way you copied and pasted my message, editing the point - the damned good point- I made about the 'homosexual offender' line- you totally removed my rebuttal, and attempted to change what I wrote by omitting two passages, yet made it look like that was the way I had written it by having it as 'Originally posted by Nikolaj"-- What you edited out was not what I originally posted, and you know it.
Not fair, not honest, and really, for all the nerve it took, I come away with the impression that you lack integrity. I win the debate by your default, and to be honest, I won it on merit.

Here's what you quoted, and I'm putting back in, bold, what you cut out that you couldn't handle or just chose to ignore:

In my reading, I was very much affected by the wording "homosexual offender"--- (as in 'the homosexual offender shall not enter the Kingdom of God'). Notice it did not say 'the homosexual shall not enter the Kingdom of God'--
So, one interpretation of several that I have, is that a homosexual offender is-- someone who offends a homosexual! Like gaybashers, homophobes...They won't enter the Kingdom of God. So, they should be more careful of how they treat men that God himself created. I also interpret it to mean that some homosexuals DO offend God. So do some heterosexuals.

OK- now that that's done with, I wish you well. Forgiveness is hard sometimes, in this case it's so easy, I don't even need an apology:)
P.S. Forgive your brother! (None of my business, I know!) But, forgive him! You'll feel better and it will please God.
double PS-- If "I" had a brother, I may not have turned out queer! I'm not complaining, I'm content with the truth. But he's in your life for a reason- God wanted it that way!
(Seriously, I do wish you well and don't mean to make light of whatever your situation is). Peace, bud :)

I wasn't trying to be deceptive at all.
What chapter and verse in the Bible
says the line you mention about offender?

[QUOTE=iamnotafraid;872876]I wasn't trying to be deceptive at all.

Yes, what you did was deceptive. You copied and pasted my message under a header of which the default is 'Originally Posted By (Nikolaj)' and then you removed a good portion of what I had written.

Nikolaj,
I responded to the part of your post I edited. I do that all the time.
If I left in everything you said it would have been harder to understand
my response to your post. Again I wasn't trying to be deceptive in the least.

And you're right about my brother I should forgive him, but I'm struggling
with it.

I found the passage, right after- a second after- I asked God to help me find it, I found it on Page 282, I was growing weary of looking for it- I should have asked 281 pages earlier!
It's in Corinthians 1, Chapter 6:
"Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the Kingdom of God".

And, I'll let it rest with this comment: that you said 'you do it all the time' doesn't make it right, to remove a key point I was making to make it more suit what you care to respond to.
My point was/is that 'homosexual offender' is DIFFERENT than 'homosexual'--
If HE meant that "no homosexual shall enter the Kingdom of God"...it would say that. It does not.

Have a great Sunday.

Nikolaj,

Without using any of your response in my reply. I did not find what you had
said was written in the Bible. The following is what I found concerning the verses
posted:

NKJV
1 Corinthians 6:9-10
Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God?
Do not be decieved. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers,
nor homosexuals, nor sodomites, nor thieves, nor covetous,
nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners will inherit the kingdom of God.

KJV 1 Corinthians 6:9-10
Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God?
Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor
effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, nor thieves, nor
covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners shall inherit the
kingdom of God.

Ah, good ol' self-righteousness. It's such an intoxicating feeling, isn't it? We all succumb to it sometimes, and sure, it may help you feel better about yourself at the time and let you rest easy that night, so secure in the knowledge that you know what's what... but one day, you may wake up to realize that you've treated good people in a heinous way they absolutely didn't deserve just because you like the feeling - real or delusional, whatever the case may be - of being right.

It's discussions like these that remind me to be thankful I am atheist. I don't need a book to tell me who is and isn't a good person - all I need to do is open my eyes and my ears, and listen when someone opens his/her mouth - for good or for bad.

And damned if I don't love it when it's as easy to suss out as it is in this thread.

^ I couldn't have put it any better:thumbsup:

I too feel reassured with my atheism

You're right on the money here! :nod:
I find it astounding that people make various quotes from the Bible, working out what's acceptable and what isn't from it, and telling us we're all sinners with sin being an unavoidable part of being human. Can't they think for themselves and work out how to be nice and genuinely ethical with rationality? Or don't they have any?
And why not quote some other holy books, like the Qur'an or the Vedas? They seem just as internally inconsistent with the contradictory logic they employ throughtout their writings. Perhaps it's because Christianity is correct, because if you believe it hard enough, Christianity must be true. :shrug:
About the only religion I can tolerate anymore is Buddhism - despite the odd fault here and there (e.g. children born disabled are people that have done something terribly wrong in their past life), it seems a much more pleasant religion than any others (i.e. while other religions have a habit for turning out both good and bad people, buddhism doesn't seem to do the latter, so far as I know). I doubt I'd argue for a strong philosophical, rational basis for everything as passionately as I do nowadays if Buddhism was the only religion people might choose to follow that I had to "contend" with.
Please excuse the length of my rant! :o

i am not a religious person or a biblical scholar by any means. however, i was raised christian and devoted a lot of time and energy when i was younger to trying to reconcile the beliefs i was taught with the knowledge that i was gay. in the end, i couldn't, but that is neither here nor there.

what i don't understand is why so many christians get hung up on homosexuality. there are countless sins that people commit every day, but it seems overall that christians are inordinately concerned about homosexuality and some go so far as to spread lies and demonize us in order to strip us of basic human dignity.

i understand the biblical argument is that sex should be procreative and therefore acting on homosexual urges is wrong. however, i have seen firsthand the psychic damage that is caused when gay people lead straight lives, and that damage has a ripple effect. the struggle to deny something as fundamental as your sexuality is unimaginable.

honestly, i don't mind being told i'm going to hell because i don't believe in an afterlife. i mind more when people try to lead me to christ (or any religion) because the implication is that my life is less meaningful because i don't belong to a religion.

i think the human need for transcendence is a universal one. i don't think i'm better or smarter than anybody just because i'm not a christian. i am still awed and humbled by the beauty of the natural world, the kindness of others, the scope of our universe; even though i don't see the hand of god in any of it. but i don't feel the need to talk anyone out of being a christian, muslim, jew, etc. so it bugs me when someone tries to talk me into being one.

you know i like you and i am not talking about you in particular with any of this. i just wanted to explain how things look from the other side.

nikolaj, i do this all the time, quoting just the parts of someone else's post that are pertinent to my response. i have seen many others do it too. the intent is rarely if ever to passive aggressively denounce what was omitted. i don't even think iamnotafraid was trying to debate your point.

really? how come? i'm not challenging you, i'm just always interested in what people think is the root of homosexuality.

I'm already back! :laugh: It's just because the ever-insightful carrie721 posted. :)
I find the universe all the more remarkable at the thought that it's all a natural process! It seems more remarkable than thinking it was all created with a bit of magic, at least to me anyway...
(In case you want to know, I personally think the universe is a physical manifestation of an underlying piece of grand mathematics. Of course, I study particle physics, so in a way that shouldn't surprise anyone. Also, my philosophy of mathematics is Platonic. The best evidence I can think of to justify that philosophy is the magic of complex numbers, which, by the simple positing of i^2 = -1, reveals a whole lot of unexpected relationships, particularly e^ix = cosx + isinx. :))
As for the roots of homosexuality, it's best described as a type of biological "misfire". As far as I can tell, this "misfire" and that of fetishes are related (i.e. the origins should be related, even though the desires can easily be independent). I myself have a latex fetish. :o (And, no, I'm not into forms of dom/sub, or much of anything beyond wearing latex. I'm rather boring in that way! :laugh:)
Ultimately these issues all come down to genes, although sometimes (perhaps with this instance, for example) that can be as helpful as saying that we're made of fundamental particles - certainly, that's where the answer lies, but it does nothing to help our brains understand the problem! :laugh:

you just blew my mind by bringing up i^2 = -1. i have thought about that every day since i learned about "i" in algebra 2 way back in 10th grade. i have no idea why, but it fascinates me. i should take more math classes or something. :laugh:

your point about the biological misfire is a good one. i haven't completely fleshed out my thoughts on the origins of homosexuality, but i definitely fall more on the "nature" side of nature vs. nurture.

Well, the Bible has changed many, many times over the years. You look at most of the copies of the Bible people have in their homes, and it is missing many of the other books that are out there - a group of dudes, several times over the years, has sat down to decide what Christians needed to read and didn't need to read, and they dumped off what they felt didn't jive with what they wanted you to read.

Mind you, it is possible to go now and read many of those deuterocanonical texts today, whereas it wasn't so easy to do so even 50 years ago. If people were able to read these texts with open eyes, then I think they'd be blown away at the sheer amount of material that was left out of the Bible, as well as the interesting and often completely contradictory information they provide.

And ignoring all of that, you have the problem of all the many different versions we have available now, each using their own unique language in a lot of cases. You have the King James Version and then you have the NEW King James Version and then you have the 21st Century King James Version. You have the New International Version and then you have the New International Version (UK) and then you have the TODAY'S New International Version. And on and on and on. They're all worded differently in spots. The translations differ. And depending on what version they were translated from, then you just get farther and farther from the translations that were used for the first slew of Bibles. A lot of people think that "dogs" in one of the previously quoted verses refers to homosexuals, but for all we know, 2000 years ago, they could've been talking about whatever was equivalent to today's popular teacup chihuahua. Who knows?

Nobody.
When you read the Bible, whatever you are reading is not the straight gospel truth coming from the lips of your deity of choice. You're reading a book that has been changed and modified to suit the needs of whoever was doing the writing at the time, over and over and over again, for hundreds and hundreds of years. So much for the word of god. You're reading the word of men. And men? Aren't exactly known for being super smart or rational or even reasonable a lot of the time. I'm just sayin.

And yet somehow, people think this book is the be-all, end-all final word that gives them the right to turn around and cast judgment and aspersions on someone else just because they happen to love differently than they do.

That is not being righteous. That is being self-righteous. And it is bull****.

Furthermore, I am tired of people couching their flat-out judgment and aspersions against others with, "But I said I sin, too! I'm admitting my faults! I'm humble!" like that somehow makes it okay to say someone else is an abomination and going to hell, again, just because they love differently than you do. What a crock.

Anyway, even the Dalai Lama has voiced aloud his issues with homosexuals, though that is mostly down to cultural mores rather than anything Buddhism actually says. I don't know any Buddhists that think what you said about disabled folks, nor do I recall anything like that in the texts I've read (and I've read a lot of them), but I mostly hung out with Soto Zen guys, and they are markedly lacking in the mumbo jumbo and the hocus pocus, unlike, say, the Theravadans.

I figure it's nature. After all, I didn't have to "choose" to be straight. It's just how I am.

^ One of the things I find amazing about the King James Version is that, being based off the Textus Receptus for the New Testament, and the Hebrew Masoretic text for the Old Testament, it still matches up with the Dead Sea Scrolls, which were found in 1947, and are far older. I've heard alot of people find the KJV to be confusing, since it was translated into old English, but I was raised reading it. I'm not against other translations, I just haven't used 'em much, so I have no room to speak on them.

As for the "Apocrypha", Catholic bibles include them. Protestants don't believe they are the inspired word of God as they believe the other accepted 66 books are, and the writers of these texts themselves never laid claim to this. Also, being raised as a Baptist, I can say that branch of Protestantism believes God gave His word to the Israelites to keep sacred and unchanged, and the Israelites took this deathly seriously. When copying the texts, if a single error was discovered in a manuscript, or some kind of blemish after use in public worship, the manuscript was promptly destroyed and the whole thing was re-transcribed. And those Apocryphal books? The Jews destroyed them when Jerusalem was reclaimed in 70 AD.

So, basically, what the Israelites accepted as canonical scriptures is what directed the decision to leave out the Apocryphal books.


Just thought I'd throw my two cents in regarding the Bible's validity and the accuracy of the translations available(Well, the KJV, atleast).

Hi- to Carrie, I see your point about the copying and pasting- it was just what was omitted with what was left was then all edited together to look like it had been written that way, I don't think you do that- I myself, of course, have copied a portion of what someone has written to reply to it, but I didn't edit out a substantial part and then leave pasted on an ending to it by the author that changed or left out the point that had been made. The paste job completely changed the content and what was omitted changed what I was saying.
But, maybe I'm wrong, and it's possible I shouldn't have even mentioned it. I can say it doesn't matter to me now, so I'm sorry if I over-reacted.
All I can say to notafraid, is that the word 'offender' is in there, right where I said, in Corinthians, in the 1986 Gideons International King James New Testament. If the word was left out of your Bible, there must have been a homophobe editor at work! Because, an 'amplified bible' which mine is not, may add passages, words, meditations, but for a word to be taken out, it's a shame. And I believe you. No wonder so many gays and lesbians have been turned off to God when so many believe we're doomed to Hell just for being who the f*** we are. I don't believe it, and encourage gays and lesbians to find the truth, too. Sigh. I've got no debate or fight left in me on this, you know what you know, and I know what I know. It's good. Peace and good will to not afraid.
Back to Carrie, my 'if I had a brother maybe I wouldnt have turned out queer' comment was partially joking, partially not. I was close to my mom and my sister. I didn't have that same connection with my Dad, and wanted it, but my Dad was just so foreign to me- wrong word, but close, we didn't connect. But he's in his late 70s now and we get along well. I'm a better son now than I ever was. And he has his good points that I appreciate now. I just lacked male relatability (?) as a child and I'm sure I overstated that me having a brother would have made me less apt to want to find a meaningful male closeness that I lacked growing up.
Boy, this is all too much, I think I had better stick to the 'which demo was best' discussions in the Nicks and Rumours forums.
Thanks for letting me pass some time here!

(note the above is edited for comment)

I also have The Gideons International King James Version (1980 Edition).
And the words "homosexual offender" is not in the text.

And on your "there must have been a homophobe editor at work" says a lot.
I need not comment further.

I doubt your fascination with i^2 = -1 could outdo mine! :laugh: Or that of Roger Penrose (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roger_Penrose). He wrote a book, "The Road To Reality" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Roa...f_the_Universe), in which he spent a whole chapter detailing the intricacies of complex numbers and the amazing relationships they produce. It was one of the few chapters that I could understand! :laugh: I think I've read ~40% of the book (non-sequentially), and understood little of it, but it's certainly worth buying if you're interested in maths and physics. Even when you don't understand it it's still enjoyable enough to read - it gives an insight into the thinking of a true genius, if nothing else! And that alone is worth the purchase. :nod:
As for nature vs. nurture, the best way to understand it is to think of genes reacting, or "switching on or off", depending on the environment you're in. Of course heterosexuality is prevalent, so nature is more likely in this case... for fetishes I'd expect nurture, in the sense that I'd expect it takes the sight of the object of fascination to be shown before your genes for the fetish "switch on"...
That's about as far as my minimal knowledge of evolutionary biology will allow me to speculate! :D

Interesting. My 1986 version must be the corrected version, without the homophobe editor! I stand by that comment. If your 1980 version had been complete and correct, they would not have changed it for the later printing, it happens all the time, errors corrected in a later publishing!
Oh, and since you made a point of noting your copying and pasting, which we all do, I just say thanks for doing so in a way that was completely honest this time.