|
Post by BobWilliston on Jul 1, 2014 18:16:35 GMT -5
I'm sorry to hear that you're a sinner. But I'm still wondering what exactly you told this fellow about his "condition". I'd like to know if it was the same as the 2x2 advice given in my family. Bob, the young man knew that there were things already in the bible against homosexuality and he just asked me if I knew where they were and would I go over them again with him...which I did. That didn't last very long. The next was he also knew that some of the relatives would or were having a hard time dealing with his homosexuality and he wanted to know just what was going on with each one and if I thought there was anything he could do to help matters come around to where no one was no longer deeply offended about it. At that, I told him that "time" is the healer and fixer of many things. But I did encourage him to deal man to man with his own father, who was perhaps the worst affected. The last word I've had on that front is daddy is coming around and they are enjoying visits with one another. This alone is a miracle for his dad is something else......probably part of the reason for a lot of things.....I'm sorry to say that my husband, the young man's grandfather really never got it worked out in his mind, but his heart still loved the young man and he never faced the grandson with bad words or behaviours toward him. The grandson had not said one word to me about grandpa's angst about his homosexuality....so I'm not certain how much he was aware of the disapproval......But my husband had had a stroke about that time and he wasn't himself over a lot of things and we all just took whatever he said or didn't say with a grain of salt in accordance to his own frustrations about his ability to really be able to say what he wanted to say. So I don't get it from the grandson he was hurt about anything his grandpa said or did......I think enough time has gone by that I would have heard surely by now. I know the young man's own mother cried right in front of him the first time, but he didn't take it too bad but she told him that she felt that as a parent she had failed him somehow. He has worked to reassure her differently. They're close buddies these days, as far as I can tell! I don't think th eyoung man is hurt or holding things in at all.....he knows who he is and where he wants to be and what he wants and he knows that he has to work to get what he wants....and so he is doing so! Shorter answer is, NO it wasn't the routine 2x2 answer at all......what he asked for he was given that and no more then that other then the advice to try to work with his own father, for no one else could do that for him. People should not ask advice for advice from people who don't have the same "problem" as they do.
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Jul 1, 2014 18:19:28 GMT -5
What you're actually playing with is euphemism. Yes, we know that in the Bible "women washed men's feet" too -- the modern euphemism for that is "sleeping with them". Of course they were called such things as "bed-keepers" (or eunuchs) -- you didn't expect them to be called nutless, or some such thing, surely. Reminded me that Ruth was told to go into the place where Boaz was that one night and sleep at his feet...so she did, he awoke and was quite disturbed and he made sure she got out of there early enough and had plenty of grains,etc for an excuse for having been there! lah! I sure didn't know I was supposed to go and sleep at the feet of the man I was hoping to marry....just dumb I guess! lol See what you've missed for not understanding Biblical euphemisms?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 1, 2014 18:33:41 GMT -5
Bob, the young man knew that there were things already in the bible against homosexuality and he just asked me if I knew where they were and would I go over them again with him...which I did. That didn't last very long. The next was he also knew that some of the relatives would or were having a hard time dealing with his homosexuality and he wanted to know just what was going on with each one and if I thought there was anything he could do to help matters come around to where no one was no longer deeply offended about it. At that, I told him that "time" is the healer and fixer of many things. But I did encourage him to deal man to man with his own father, who was perhaps the worst affected. The last word I've had on that front is daddy is coming around and they are enjoying visits with one another. This alone is a miracle for his dad is something else......probably part of the reason for a lot of things.....I'm sorry to say that my husband, the young man's grandfather really never got it worked out in his mind, but his heart still loved the young man and he never faced the grandson with bad words or behaviours toward him. The grandson had not said one word to me about grandpa's angst about his homosexuality....so I'm not certain how much he was aware of the disapproval......But my husband had had a stroke about that time and he wasn't himself over a lot of things and we all just took whatever he said or didn't say with a grain of salt in accordance to his own frustrations about his ability to really be able to say what he wanted to say. So I don't get it from the grandson he was hurt about anything his grandpa said or did......I think enough time has gone by that I would have heard surely by now. I know the young man's own mother cried right in front of him the first time, but he didn't take it too bad but she told him that she felt that as a parent she had failed him somehow. He has worked to reassure her differently. They're close buddies these days, as far as I can tell! I don't think th eyoung man is hurt or holding things in at all.....he knows who he is and where he wants to be and what he wants and he knows that he has to work to get what he wants....and so he is doing so! Shorter answer is, NO it wasn't the routine 2x2 answer at all......what he asked for he was given that and no more then that other then the advice to try to work with his own father, for no one else could do that for him. People should not ask advice for advice from people who don't have the same "problem" as they do. do you have to be a drug user to help drug offenders? same with alcoholism do you have to be an alcoholic to help one?
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Jul 1, 2014 18:45:02 GMT -5
People should not ask advice for advice from people who don't have the same "problem" as they do. do you have to be a drug user to help drug offenders? same with alcoholism do you have to be an alcoholic to help one? I wasn't talking about help. I was talking about asking for advice -- and I should have said "from people who have dealt with the problem themselves." e.g. I know a woman who asked the overseer for advice on what to do about the elder who was messing with her 6 year old daughter. His advice was to say nothing to anyone, and to continue accepting invitations to dinner at the elder's house. The woman asked the wrong overseer -- she should have asked Jerome Frandle.
|
|
|
Post by eyedeetentee on Jul 1, 2014 19:11:25 GMT -5
H-o-l-y mackerel . . . Some of you might want to do some scientific reading. I'm not talking about your favorite 'holy' book. I'm talking about some elementary (5th to 8th grade) science. Read it over and over for a couple weeks, then take up high school level. Pay particular attention to the human body and the way it works. Then, if you're still among the living after your science shock, read some scholarly journals (I know, I know, that's a bit of a leap) regarding human nature, physiology, psychology, and such. It doesn't matter what profession you're in now. Even if you're a nurse or doctor, I believe you missed a subject or two somewhere along the way.
Finally, go out into the real world. Take a trip far away from the comforts of home, more than 1,584,000 feet. I know, it's a long way, but you'll do fine. Humans exist outside of that zone. It's true. Stay away from anyone with whom you relate (not only meaning relation or having relations). Find people you find disgusting. Talk to them. I'm not going to spoil your trip by giving you the results, but you will be amazed.
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Jul 1, 2014 20:06:36 GMT -5
No. I am saying that it is an "abomination" for a heterosexual to engage in same sex activities. Neither homosexuals nor bi-sexuals find it an abomination, nor does it run against the nature that God gave them. If something is operating according to how God made it to operate, how can it be an abomination to God? That's impossible. It is only heterosexuals who engage in homosexual activities who are going against the Creator. why would a heterosexual engage in homosexual activity unless their Bi? that doesn't make any sense to a layman... Wally & CD, what do you think about a lot of of men in prison?
Does the homosexual activity that goes on there is only because they are homosexual oriented and no heterosexual men participate?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 1, 2014 20:26:43 GMT -5
why would a heterosexual engage in homosexual activity unless their Bi? that doesn't make any sense to a layman... Wally & CD, what do you think about a lot of of men in prison?
Does the homosexual activity that goes on there is only because they are homosexual oriented and no heterosexual men participate?
I don't know anything about it. Wiki says the most same sex activity in prisons is in contradiction to the normal sexual orientation of the participants.
|
|
|
Post by rational on Jul 1, 2014 20:28:53 GMT -5
Laws prohibit activities that don't make sense. Like wearing a fur coat on a hot summer day? Marvin Harris had a number of ideas about this as well.
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Jul 1, 2014 21:37:58 GMT -5
Bob's research was focused on China. That particular research paper Bob wrote was focused on China. My expectation is that Bob's interest and knowledge of the topic do not stop at the border! I did get to read about some differences between eunuchs in other countries too. It's not so long ago that the practice was generally forbidden world-wide. But in virtually all places where the practice of castration was practiced, it was to provide a class of safely sexless individuals for sensitive jobs -- and the most common concerns were the rulers' women and money. There was a Christian group until the early 20th century in Russia who practiced castration to help keep themselves pure from the filth of lust. Problem was, there were no longer any virgin births. The eunuchs in China were particularly interesting because at times they virtually ruled the country. The emperor, being too elevated to communicate with mere mortals, for a long time had eunuchs carrying the messages back and forth between him and the people. Consequently the eunuchs got to play both sides against each other so they were the ones who got everything they wanted, including on occasion some of the wives and concubines. There was something I wanted to know about that, but couldn't find any details.
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Jul 1, 2014 21:56:01 GMT -5
It doesn't make any sense, that's why it is an abomination. Why does someone murder? There are no good reasons, it doesn't make sense, and that is why it is illegal. Laws prohibit activities that don't make sense. Why was eating shellfish an abomination and against the law? They probably had some experiences of getting sick from eating them, therefore it was an abomination. Similarly with pork, they probably found that they couldn't keep pork without it going bad and making them sick. Once you get the hang of it, you will find that some of the weirdest laws almost certainly had common sense behind them. Having a law against heterosexuals doing same sex acts makes a lot of common sense. The same law would also eliminate the possibility of powerful homosexuals raping other men. They didn't know what we know now: that God made homosexuals after his own image, and condemning them is tantamount to condemning yourself. The only problem with your interpretation, CD, is this: There were NO homosexuals in that day OR they just didn't exist as far as God and whatever ruler was on that day! I'm not sure that is correct....just because the laws does not say "homosexual" or "Gay" or "lesbian" does not mean they are NOT spoken to or about in the bible, it would seem! But according to your broad interpretation, they are not even recognized as being human, animal, fowl or fish! So was the real thrust of the law was to totally "ignore" the presence of things that were not seemly and they just wouldn't be there? There was no word for homosexuality in Bible days -- because there was no concept of homosexuality. People did what they did, and it mattered not who did something or why he did it, it was right or wrong "ACCORDING TO THE LAW". People had no responsibility to know moral right from wrong -- just know the law and obey the law. In the last couple of centuries we have learned that INDIVIDUALS have their own motivations for certain behaviors, and we have had to come up with a lot of vocabulary for concepts that never existed in Bible times. Sexual orientation is one of them. There are languages still today that do not have vocabulary for distinguishing between heterosexual and homosexual -- at least in this part of the world.
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Jul 1, 2014 22:08:52 GMT -5
This answer very much puzzles me. Why would eunuchs be homosexual? They were usually castrated so they would be safe around someone's harem. This would tell me that they were heterosexual and a danger so they were made incapable of acting on their attraction to women. Being castrated doesn't make one all of a sudden attracted to their own gender so I'm really not understanding this. Snow, CD and I were particularly speaking to the eunuchs which were used for the job of overseeing concubines or women of rich men.....castration does make a eunuch, however castration doesn't always take away the sexual desire or sometimes the complete ability to enjoy sex....so castrated eunuchs would not be considered as "safe" for rich men to hire to guard their concubines and/or women! Get that? So they would look for men who were homosexual and hire them to be their eunuchs....thus stipulating that they were eunuchs in the fact that they didn't have a desire for women! You have a couple of things wrong here. First of all, a castrated male who still had his hose was not necessarily a problem for the owner. It was not unusual for such a eunuch to enjoy some of the women, but the owner could be sure any offspring were his and not the eunuchs. This did cause some problems, particularly in cases where the "ax-man" only got one of the testes, and the offspring looked more like the eunuch than the big guy. The other misunderstanding is that castration does not alter one's sexual orientation. A heterosexual adult who is castrated remains a heterosexual for the rest of his life. A pre-pubescent male who is castrated normally does not develop any sexual desire for sex at all -- more common a practice in China than in the Middle East. Furthermore, those eunuchs would not get to develop more masculine size and strength and not suitable for keeping order among a swarm of women, which was one of their frequent duties.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 1, 2014 23:20:27 GMT -5
1. yes its called fornication 2. unclear 3. unclear but i suspect to be avoided 4. yes all homosexual sex is a sin 5. i don't "think" positions are considered sin... But wouldn't sodomy be considered a "position"? maybe
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 1, 2014 23:24:00 GMT -5
why would a heterosexual engage in homosexual activity unless their Bi? that doesn't make any sense to a layman... It doesn't make any sense, that's why it is an abomination. Why does someone murder? There are no good reasons, it doesn't make sense, and that is why it is illegal. Laws prohibit activities that don't make sense. Why was eating shellfish an abomination and against the law? They probably had some experiences of getting sick from eating them, therefore it was an abomination. Similarly with pork, they probably found that they couldn't keep pork without it going bad and making them sick. Once you get the hang of it, you will find that some of the weirdest laws almost certainly had common sense behind them. Having a law against heterosexuals doing same sex acts makes a lot of common sense. The same law would also eliminate the possibility of powerful homosexuals raping other men. They didn't know what we know now: that God made homosexuals after his own image, and condemning them is tantamount to condemning yourself. i've been reading and your interpretation just isn't there literally or figuratively...
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 1, 2014 23:29:05 GMT -5
why would a heterosexual engage in homosexual activity unless their Bi? that doesn't make any sense to a layman... There are several reasons why a heterosexual would engage in homosexual activity: (1) pay (2) curiosity (3) he is a closet homosexual (4) he is actually bisexual (5) he is desperate 1. i've only heard of one guy that did that big deal on yahoo a few years ago... 2. this is really a bi curious person and proves my point 3. proves my point 4. proves my point 5. i'll concede that men and women in prison do this
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Jul 2, 2014 1:04:59 GMT -5
There are several reasons why a heterosexual would engage in homosexual activity: (1) pay (2) curiosity (3) he is a closet homosexual (4) he is actually bisexual (5) he is desperate 1. i've only heard of one guy that did that big deal on yahoo a few years ago... 2. this is really a bi curious person and proves my point 3. proves my point 4. proves my point 5. i'll concede that men and women in prison do this Then, since you already knew about these reasons, can I assume you are NOT a layman?
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Jul 2, 2014 1:09:26 GMT -5
1. yes its called fornication 2. unclear 3. unclear but i suspect to be avoided 4. yes all homosexual sex is a sin 5. i don't "think" positions are considered sin... But wouldn't sodomy be considered a "position"? Oh no. There are many positions for sodomy. I heard of one guy who was doing it standing on a bucket, and the bucket collapsed on his foot.
|
|
|
Post by rational on Jul 2, 2014 5:59:42 GMT -5
There are several reasons why a heterosexual would engage in homosexual activity: (1) pay(2) curiosity (3) he is a closet homosexual (4) he is actually bisexual (5) he is desperate 1. i've only heard of one guy that did that big deal on yahoo a few years ago... This is a fairly common way for male adolescents to fund their drug habit. I know a number of individuals that would engage in homosexual activities for pay, some as young as 13. It's a big world out there.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 2, 2014 7:19:26 GMT -5
It doesn't make any sense, that's why it is an abomination. Why does someone murder? There are no good reasons, it doesn't make sense, and that is why it is illegal. Laws prohibit activities that don't make sense. Why was eating shellfish an abomination and against the law? They probably had some experiences of getting sick from eating them, therefore it was an abomination. Similarly with pork, they probably found that they couldn't keep pork without it going bad and making them sick. Once you get the hang of it, you will find that some of the weirdest laws almost certainly had common sense behind them. Having a law against heterosexuals doing same sex acts makes a lot of common sense. The same law would also eliminate the possibility of powerful homosexuals raping other men. They didn't know what we know now: that God made homosexuals after his own image, and condemning them is tantamount to condemning yourself. i've been reading and your interpretation just isn't there literally or figuratively... True, it isn't found in the reading, it is found in the understanding of how laws get developed. The alternative is to accept that God made up a random and arbitrary decision to tell people to stop eating shellfish......just because.... That is what many people accept but eat shellfish anyway even though there is no record of God recanting his random decision. The bottom line is that these are all man made laws under the belief that God inspired them. We know now that the current belief is that God inspired people to ignore those laws and eat shellfish. The problem is, people have difficulty accepting that God can inspire people to understand that, like shellfish being ok to eat now, homosexuality is a God given sexual orientation.
|
|
|
Post by sharingtheriches on Jul 2, 2014 9:17:41 GMT -5
The only problem with your interpretation, CD, is this: There were NO homosexuals in that day OR they just didn't exist as far as God and whatever ruler was on that day! I'm not sure that is correct....just because the laws does not say "homosexual" or "Gay" or "lesbian" does not mean they are NOT spoken to or about in the bible, it would seem! But according to your broad interpretation, they are not even recognized as being human, animal, fowl or fish! So was the real thrust of the law was to totally "ignore" the presence of things that were not seemly and they just wouldn't be there? It shouldn't be so difficult to believe that homosexuals weren't recognized in that day. Even today, a lot of people think there are no homosexuals, just heterosexuals who have "chosen" same sex relationships. As I mentioned in a previous post, the term "homosexual" wasn't invented until the 19th century and ancient Latin had no specific term for homosexuality. I think it is pretty obvious that the laws and Paul's comments were all based on the idea that people who engaged in same sex activity were perverting themselves from their natural orientation. They just did not recognize that many of them were actually practicing their God-given natural orientation. Had they understood that, gay marriage wouldn't something new today, it would have been codified thousands of years ago. When I was much younger and of course, not desiring same sex....I used to think same sex marriages shouldn't be a fact. But after having lived some years, I think they should...in that they should have to face the legal snafus that many of us face when we get into deteriorating relationships and it takes time and money to legally separate, plus the fact of sharing the same "tax" liabilities, etc. Insurance problems, dual home ownership....anfd as we've heard on TMB it seems some are getting into child rearing and I've read some very hot child custody cases from same sex couples...they actually get as ugly as the heterosexual pairs do when fighting custody battles....Makes me glad I'm not longer mediating such things. That was one things that got to me and that was a couple fighting over the children and poor children had already suffered the separation thing and now the children have to face the separated parents fighting over custody and visitation rights. Then on top of that comes the mediation for the grandparents' visitation...Yep, I think they should enjoy the bad as well as the good of same sex marriages, divorces, etc. That way they are just another person in a land of folks almost always trying to get the better of one another when the commitment and love dies! IF it was ever there to start with. I just thought of a man who'd lived in CA for many years as a single man, he had married a young lady, but she up and left him about the 3rd day after the ceremony. The divorce was named an annulment as if the marriage had never happened, but the C A workers made the man suffer the same things that many divorced people suffer out there, when they tell the workers they'd like to remarry, then the workers lower the boom on them...he got it as well....but according to the bible and according to the legal side of it, that marriage was as if it had never occurred due to lack of commitment on the woman's part...but the man never got married until his ex-wife died at the age of 60 something.....he sure didn't have much time for the marital bliss issues...but he kept the workers' approval!
|
|
|
Post by applesandbacon on Jul 2, 2014 12:11:02 GMT -5
"they actually get as ugly as the heterosexual pairs do when fighting custody battles"
Since "they" are actually humans just like "us", I'm not sure why anyone would find this surprising.
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Jul 2, 2014 16:55:42 GMT -5
"they actually get as ugly as the heterosexual pairs do when fighting custody battles" Since "they" are actually humans just like "us", I'm not sure why anyone would find this surprising. Yes. There was a lovers' spat behind the theater one night when the cast of "Thunder from Down Under" were leaving for the night, and the police were called to settle them down. Remarkably the punches were light enough that no bruises were left.
|
|
|
Post by peacefulheart on Jul 2, 2014 17:35:56 GMT -5
"they actually get as ugly as the heterosexual pairs do when fighting custody battles" Since "they" are actually humans just like "us", I'm not sure why anyone would find this surprising. Yes. There was a lovers' spat behind the theater one night when the cast of "Thunder from Down Under" were leaving for the night, and the police were called to settle them down. Remarkably the punches were light enough that no bruises were left. Bob, you have a great sense of humor!
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Jul 2, 2014 17:47:33 GMT -5
Yes. There was a lovers' spat behind the theater one night when the cast of "Thunder from Down Under" were leaving for the night, and the police were called to settle them down. Remarkably the punches were light enough that no bruises were left. Bob, you have a great sense of humor! I was a teacher for 42 years. Whenever some kid went off on me, I usually just laughed. If it didn't do anything for the screamer, it gained me a lot of respect from the rest of the class. Oh, the fun I had as a teacher.
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Jul 2, 2014 17:50:24 GMT -5
"they actually get as ugly as the heterosexual pairs do when fighting custody battles" Since "they" are actually humans just like "us", I'm not sure why anyone would find this surprising. Yes. There was a lovers' spat behind the theater one night when the cast of "Thunder from Down Under" were leaving for the night, and the police were called to settle them down. Remarkably the punches were light enough that no bruises were left. On the other hand, when the -itches in the show down the street get into a fight it's a major brawl, sometimes requiring multiple ambulances.
|
|
|
Post by peacefulheart on Jul 2, 2014 19:50:01 GMT -5
Bob, you have a great sense of humor! I was a teacher for 42 years. Whenever some kid went off on me, I usually just laughed. If it didn't do anything for the screamer, it gained me a lot of respect from the rest of the class. Oh, the fun I had as a teacher. 42 years, wow that's a long time & a LOT of patience
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Jul 2, 2014 21:38:00 GMT -5
I was a teacher for 42 years. Whenever some kid went off on me, I usually just laughed. If it didn't do anything for the screamer, it gained me a lot of respect from the rest of the class. Oh, the fun I had as a teacher. 42 years, wow that's a long time & a LOT of patience But I was having a lot of fun too. Otherwise I'd never have been able to do it.
|
|
|
Post by peacefulheart on Jul 2, 2014 22:00:38 GMT -5
42 years, wow that's a long time & a LOT of patience But I was having a lot of fun too. Otherwise I'd never have been able to do it. I'm sure the kids loved you too! A great sense of humor and you had fun with them....I remember having teachers like that, it gave me something to look forward to every day at school. There were the teachers who took things wayyyyyy to serious and didn't even know how to smile, that was the class no one wanted to go to for sure, ha!
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Jul 2, 2014 22:09:08 GMT -5
But I was having a lot of fun too. Otherwise I'd never have been able to do it. I'm sure the kids loved you too! A great sense of humor and you had fun with them....I remember having teachers like that, it gave me something to look forward to every day at school. There were the teachers who took things wayyyyyy to serious and didn't even know how to smile, that was the class no one wanted to go to for sure, ha! One of the things I really tried to do with the really violent kids is teach them a sense of humor. They take life too seriously and have no concept of just letting the rules of society take care of things. The meanest 15 year old I ever met hugged me before they took him off to state prison. I never got beat up once -- I ducked punches very quickly.
|
|