There is no homo or hetero. It's all just sexual.

[cafe]

Yeah. Leviticus. Not sure what to do about Leviticus, and all the mitzvot. We'd have to follow like 613 laws if we were to do it all, making homosexuality just one of hundreds of things that are 'detestable.'

I still go back to the 10 Commandments and the love/lust rule to help me determine and identify sexual immorality.

There are two or three places in the Epistles, also, FWIW. There are multiple views on whether or not it is proper to interpret them as forbidding homosexual relationships. I think pederasty and various types of temple prostitution were fairly common at the time and the verses could be referring to that rather than to relationships between consenting adults. And in Ezekiel, the sin of Sodom is that they "were arrogant, overfed and unconcerned; they did not help the poor and needy."

I have decided to be agnostic about the interpretation of those verses in the Epistles. I mean, God in the OT does forbid it (at least for men) fairly specifically, but he also seems to almost randomly smite people and commands ethnic cleansing and stuff. In the New Testament, he seems somewhat more . . . compassionate. It seems inconsistent with the message of Christ that God would make someone a certain way then consign them to lifelong celibacy. But I can't say for sure that it's not the case. It could be considered a cross to bear or a thorn in the flesh or something like that. I can't find it in my heart to condemn someone for who they love and I am not attracted to people of the same sex, so I don't feel compelled to explore it further. I really only need to decide whether or not something is a sin for me, not for anyone else.

Not related to this topic specifically, but to Love as a Christian concept, you might enjoy reading C.S. Lewis' The Four Loves. It's been awhile since I read it, but I remember enjoying it very much and being presented with new ideas that were interesting to think about.

 

[miss fortune]

You might want to mind that lustfulness. Just sayin. It's opens a door for the devil to ply his wily ways.



If love takes time, I respect and honor that. I hope that it gets easier for you to trust, and that you find someone(s) whom you can trust.

But you really have no business lusting in the meantime. You should work on your inability to trust, which is likely a love issue as well, then when you have become better in that regard, work on loving others. Since you already have a man, you should not need to lust others at all, unless that is something you both agree on (and to go there we'd have to move this to my new aphrodite thread).

what we have works quite well for us... a good "look and leer all you want but no touching!" policy... which is helped by the fact that he's a germaphobe and I hate being touched

plus... watching a good "dancer" do her thing on the pole can get BOTH of us ready to head straight home and rip each other's clothes off... always a nice thing

and on another note, everyone's different- what works for one won't necessarily work for anyone else... same applies to relationships- ours might be an odd one sometimes, but we're happy

 

[AphroditeGoneAwry]

There are two or three places in the Epistles, also, FWIW. There are multiple views on whether or not it is proper to interpret them as forbidding homosexual relationships. I think pederasty and various types of temple prostitution were fairly common at the time and the verses could be referring to that rather than to relationships between consenting adults. And in Ezekiel, the sin of Sodom is that they "were arrogant, overfed and unconcerned; they did not help the poor and needy."

I have decided to be agnostic about the interpretation of those verses in the Epistles. I mean, God in the OT does forbid it (at least for men) fairly specifically, but he also seems to almost randomly smite people and commands ethnic cleansing and stuff. In the New Testament, he seems somewhat more . . . compassionate. It seems inconsistent with the message of Christ that God would make someone a certain way then consign them to lifelong celibacy. But I can't say for sure that it's not the case. It could be considered a cross to bear or a thorn in the flesh or something like that. I can't find it in my heart to condemn someone for who they love and I am not attracted to people of the same sex, so I don't feel compelled to explore it further. I really only need to decide whether or not something is a sin for me, not for anyone else.

Not related to this topic specifically, but to Love as a Christian concept, you might enjoy reading C.S. Lewis' The Four Loves. It's been awhile since I read it, but I remember enjoying it very much and being presented with new ideas that were interesting to think about.

Yeah, agreed. Again, we have the 10 Commandments for a reason. They tell us what to avoid to avoid sin. Then the rest of the bible gives us an enchiridion for how to live fully in Christ, if we choose to.

what we have works quite well for us... a good "look and leer all you want but no touching!" policy... which is helped by the fact that he's a germaphobe and I hate being touched

plus... watching a good "dancer" do her thing on the pole can get BOTH of us ready to head straight home and rip each other's clothes off... always a nice thing

and on another note, everyone's different- what works for one won't necessarily work for anyone else... same applies to relationships- ours might be an odd one sometimes, but we're happy

If you agree to a certain amount of lustfulness in your relationship, then there is no sin in that, as long as it doesn't start to covet your neighbor. It just might not be the highest state or fulfillment your relationship could find. For example, you could be spending that time watching the pole dancer meeting with another couple and sharing with them. Or doing something else to glorify God, that would feed your soul and mind.

 

[miss fortune]

If you agree to a certain amount of lustfulness in your relationship, then there is no sin in that, as long as it doesn't start to covet your neighbor. It just might not be the highest state or fulfillment your relationship could find. For example, you could be spending that time watching the pole dancer meeting with another couple and sharing with them. Or doing something else to glorify God, that would feed your soul and mind.

and on the list of reasons why I am not religious... what sort of horrible god would put a lovely fruit tree in front of people and say "now don't touch this!"

I would rather truly live my life in every facet than to tiptoe around hoping that I'm not offending anyone... if I die and I regret NOT doing something in life I've died a failure... luckily I've found someone with a similar view on the world- sometimes a person just gets that fortunate- we love each other, trust each other and still are excited to go home together at the end of the night after the honeymoon period has wound down... how many people can say that?

dancing, if done correctly, is every bit as much of an art as the paintings in the art museum (and often involves the same amount of clothing as well... )... and if Keats is right, it's truth in motion... there's nothing wrong with a little theater before bedtime if everyone knows their boundaries. Whether or not I'm a good person is much less of a bother to me since I'm aware that, above all else, I'm a person and so is everyone else... it engenders a sense of equality and sisterhood that religion looks for... sometimes a little less worrying and a little more simplicity is a lovely thing

but then again, that's my take... and if religion is right, I'll spend my afterlife in good company...

 

[sprinkles]

and on the list of reasons why I am not religious... what sort of horrible god would put a lovely fruit tree in front of people and say "now don't touch this!"

Well that's obviously just a story and really makes no sense. I think it's a feeble attempt at an analogy of the human condition.

However, yes it makes no sense in any universe to make a tree that has the power to grant knowledge of good and evil in that situation. God did not need it and told Adam and Eve not to have it.

I figure that whoever wrote that just meant to illustrate how humans went from innocence to our current condition but missed the giant plot hole that the tree and its powers really has no explanation for being there.

 

[AphroditeGoneAwry]

and on the list of reasons why I am not religious... what sort of horrible god would put a lovely fruit tree in front of people and say "now don't touch this!"

I would rather truly live my life in every facet than to tiptoe around hoping that I'm not offending anyone... if I die and I regret NOT doing something in life I've died a failure... luckily I've found someone with a similar view on the world- sometimes a person just gets that fortunate- we love each other, trust each other and still are excited to go home together at the end of the night after the honeymoon period has wound down... how many people can say that?

dancing, if done correctly, is every bit as much of an art as the paintings in the art museum (and often involves the same amount of clothing as well... )... and if Keats is right, it's truth in motion... there's nothing wrong with a little theater before bedtime if everyone knows their boundaries. Whether or not I'm a good person is much less of a bother to me since I'm aware that, above all else, I'm a person and so is everyone else... it engenders a sense of equality and sisterhood that religion looks for... sometimes a little less worrying and a little more simplicity is a lovely thing

but then again, that's my take... and if religion is right, I'll spend my afterlife in good company...

Well, none of us is 'good' anyway. Only God is good.

I hope things work out for you, you sound pretty level-headed and grounded. Best wishes.

 

[A window to the soul]

Why would someone who claims to be so holy be such a terrible liar?

Shame on you.

 

[Salomé]

No. You're incapable of sane argument. I'd rather you just kept your word. Seems you're incapable of that too. You don't get to preach till you learn how to practice.

 

[Siúil a Rúin]

Oh. And I've done the non-Godly thing and it's scarred me for life. To each his own.

I regretted phrasing that harshly soon after posting.

I get frustrated on this topic just because I spent my younger adult years hearing about providential leading towards romantic encounters and it often followed the same pattern:

When someone was attracted to another person, they would see providential leading in every detail
Sometimes a relationship would result with emotional hype about God's leading
The relationship falls apart and all providence is forgotten.
Repeat

Sometimes a person would be angry at god for not giving them a partner, not realizing that their own social backwardness and inability to communicate was the problem. Instead of focusing on personal responsibility to make self-improvements, it was all placed on the magical granting of prayer requests.

Giving one's will over to god is dangerous because it can lead people to trust the judgment of pastors and other outside people or personal impulses which are not subjected to analysis and questioning.

Two of the most important tools a person can possess to result in successful relationships is a deep self-awareness that knows not only sexual orientation, but our every strength and weakness, and the ability to take responsibility for our choices. Some people are bi and could have a successful, healthy relationship with either gender, but some people would be psychologically and emotionally dismantled by being with someone they could not connect with sexually.

I hope that clarifies why I reacted so negatively to the concept of this thread.

 

[pinkgraffiti]

Are you asking for trouble? I am bisexual myself, but this view you defend is just like heterosexuals and homosexuals often saying that bisexuality doesn't exist. Follow whatever is logic or true to you, but please don't make it a common rule for anyone else.
Oh, and since you claim to not even be bisexual, then please I ask you kindly not to mess with issues that are foreign to your personal experience/suffering/feeling. You are just putting your finger on a sore that is already hurting. This kind of argument really doesn't help at all "the cause" that you are "theoretically" sustaining.

Also: there are also asexual, or at least little sexual people. the level of sexuality, as well as the gender it is directed to, all fall under a continuum, it's not always black nor white; otherwise, it's not always grey either. So, not wanting to, your argument is quite discriminating of at least a group: asexual people.

I think the ultimate expression a human can manifest is love. And not all love is created equal. I think the highest love is truly unconditional love, agape, which God has for us, his children.

Upon contemplating a hypothetical romantic partner for myself, it dawned on me that if I say, "I am heterosexual and therefore my perfect mate is a male," that is the same as saying, "I am a homosexual and my perfect mate is a female". But what if my perfect mate is actually something other than what I think I identify with? This happens in other things regarding our lives, we think we *know* something but God shows us otherwise.

I think perhaps the Godliest way to be, if we want to live in God's will for us, is to just say we are sexual, if we must say anything at all. Perhaps we should just say we are loving, because we should not really be sexing for sex's sake, but for love, making love the primary impetus for sensual and sexual relations anyway.

If we say we are X-sexual, we are trying to control who we love. And we are saying that who we love is based on who we want to have sex with. We are allowing our sexual inclinations (more superficial) to dictate love. Since love is THE primary substance of everything (because God is love and God is everything), this is wrong. So, for these reasons identifying who we are based on some misguided sexual notions, is not Godly.

So, no, I'm not bisexual. I'm not heterosexual. I'm not homosexual. I'm just loving. And when God wants me to have a sexualoving relationship, he'll give me someone to love that I may be sexual with.

 

[AphroditeGoneAwry]

I regretted phrasing that harshly soon after posting.

I get frustrated on this topic just because I spent my younger adult years hearing about providential leading towards romantic encounters and it often followed the same pattern:

When someone was attracted to another person, they would see providential leading in every detail
Sometimes a relationship would result with emotional hype about God's leading
The relationship falls apart and all providence is forgotten.
Repeat

Sometimes a person would be angry at god for not giving them a partner, not realizing that their own social backwardness and inability to communicate was the problem. Instead of focusing on personal responsibility to make self-improvements, it was all placed on the magical granting of prayer requests.

Giving one's will over to god is dangerous because it can lead people to trust the judgment of pastors and other outside people or personal impulses which are not subjected to analysis and questioning.

Two of the most important tools a person can possess to result in successful relationships is a deep self-awareness that knows not only sexual orientation, but our every strength and weakness, and the ability to take responsibility for our choices. Some people are bi and could have a successful, healthy relationship with either gender, but some people would be psychologically and emotionally dismantled by being with someone they could not connect with sexually.

I hope that clarifies why I reacted so negatively to the concept of this thread.

To the bolded:

That is why we should be so grateful we are not alone trying to figure it all out! You neglected to mention the best resource, which is God's word (the bible, commandments, etc.) and his word directly to us that comes when we pray. Pastors or others, and our own impulses and leanings, cannot reliably guide us to what is right for us because others are fallible and we are too.

If I cannot make a move until I have deep self-awareness then I'm in a bit of a quandary, because I have never really known myself even though I have had times where I thought I did. Thankfully God knows me perfectly. That is why I rely on him to be in the driver's seat. Plus our weaknesses, strengths, and sexual orientation will change over time (hopefully! because who likes monotony and stagnation?), making those things unreliable as well.

But if they would not be able to connect with them sexually, then they would never love them enough to in the first place. That is why it is imperative that LOVE lead, because then you know the sexuality from that will be pure. Sex first will not guarantee good love... and I choose the word 'good' here intently, because only God is good.

Are you asking for trouble? I am bisexual myself, but this view you defend is just like heterosexuals and homosexuals often saying that bisexuality doesn't exist. Follow whatever is logic or true to you, but please don't make it a common rule for anyone else.
Oh, and since you claim to not even be bisexual, then please I ask you kindly not to mess with issues that are foreign to your personal experience/suffering/feeling. You are just putting your finger on a sore that is already hurting. This kind of argument really doesn't help at all "the cause" that you are "theoretically" sustaining.

Also: there are also asexual, or at least little sexual people. the level of sexuality, as well as the gender it is directed to, all fall under a continuum, it's not always black nor white; otherwise, it's not always grey either. So, not wanting to, your argument is quite discriminating of at least a group: asexual people.

The highest attainable 'level' as a human being is to be as like God as possible, but in our own skins, in the life and body he has given us. Since we cannot really be like God--only Jesus could do that--we can ask to follow His will for us as much as we are able. Following God's will means keeping oneself open and available at all times~I find it wild that it is like the ultimate master/slave relationship: You would not tell your master you could not/would not do something he asked you to do! You would do it, trusting that he knew what was best for you. That is why trust is paramount, and why honesty is necessary.

Every time we categorize ourselves, label ourselves, prescribe for ourselves, consign ourselves, resign ourselves to such-and-such a reality, we limit our relationship to our Father and we limit our own existence, and the existence of those we touch. We should live knowing our lives are not really 'ours' to do whatever we want with, our lives are God's to do with what he wills. Because he not only knows and is the ultimate Good, but he knows the ultimate Good for each of us.


Love,

~Aphrodite

 

[Salomé]

Heaven and all the saints preserve us from the zeal of the newly converted...

It's like when smokers give up fags - if they have to do without, so fucking well should everyone else.
I've often wondered if the degree to which fanatical zeal is present is inversely related to a person's confidence in their own faith...

 

[cafe]

Like fia, I was taught all the Biblical stuff about sexuality as a young person. Unlike fia, I came away from it relatively unscathed. I feel very lucky to have done so. Like I narrowly dodged a bullet.

I've seen a lot of casualties of those teachings. Maybe they aren't so dangerous for those who have some experience and know what is and is not realistic, reasonable, and helpful. For those of us who were taught some of this stuff while we were too young to know any better at the very least we have likely worked hard to overcome guilt and shame in association with sexual desires and relationships.

And honestly, dismissing fia's experiences as if she did not think about stuff enough or try hard enough or examine her motives or maybe jumped into stuff without due consideration . . .

 

[AphroditeGoneAwry]

Heaven and all the saints preserve us from the zeal of the newly converted...

It's like when smokers give up fags - if they have to do without, so fucking well should everyone else.
I've often wondered if the degree to which fanatical zeal is present is inversely related to a person's confidence in their own faith...

Oh, My Feisty Sex Kitten, put away those claws already, Momma is bloody enough.

I quite do not see what you are talking about. How am I being fanatical?

I am opening up sexuality not inhibiting it. I am putting the love back into making love. Sex, fucking, ripping each other apart, boy, girl, group, whatever, but do it in the name of love, but make sure that love is a righteous one, not a lustful one.

Like fia, I was taught all the Biblical stuff about sexuality as a young person. Unlike fia, I came away from it relatively unscathed. I feel very lucky to have done so. Like I narrowly dodged a bullet.

I've seen a lot of casualties of those teachings. Maybe they aren't so dangerous for those who have some experience and know what is and is not realistic, reasonable, and helpful. For those of us who were taught some of this stuff while we were too young to know any better at the very least we have likely worked hard to overcome guilt and shame in association with sexual desires and relationships.

And honestly, dismissing fia's experiences as if she did not think about stuff enough or try hard enough or examine her motives or maybe jumped into stuff without due consideration . . .

I do not dismiss people so I'm sure you must not be talking about me here, Cafe.

That is all.




~A

 

[pinkgraffiti]

you're doing it again. why do you have to put God in the middle of this? did you ask me if i believe in it? it's like you didn't know how to reply to what i said and inserted something completely random into the conversation. and again, you are being disrespectful because you assume that i believe in god. how can we have a normal logical conversation about any subject if you continue to pretend that what you believe in is a universal rule?
i completely give up. take care, PG

The highest attainable 'level' as a human being is to be as like God as possible, but in our own skins, in the life and body he has given us. Since we cannot really be like God--only Jesus could do that--we can ask to follow His will for us as much as we are able. Following God's will means keeping oneself open and available at all times~I find it wild that it is like the ultimate master/slave relationship: You would not tell your master you could not/would not do something he asked you to do! You would do it, trusting that he knew what was best for you. That is why trust is paramount, and why honesty is necessary.

Every time we categorize ourselves, label ourselves, prescribe for ourselves, consign ourselves, resign ourselves to such-and-such a reality, we limit our relationship to our Father and we limit our own existence, and the existence of those we touch. We should live knowing our lives are not really 'ours' to do whatever we want with, our lives are God's to do with what he wills. Because he not only knows and is the ultimate Good, but he knows the ultimate Good for each of us.


Love,

~Aphrodite

 

[Ivy]

"Cherish those who seek the truth but beware of those who find it."

 

[AphroditeGoneAwry]

hahaha. You guys make me sound sooooo puritan and zealous.

I really don't get it. Why so defensive?

 

[Ivy]

I don't know that anyone thinks you're a puritan. You don't seem puritan to me. You're kind of a confused/confusing mix of lascivious and judgmental about what you perceive as lasciviousness in others.

As for zealous, you do seem that way- nobody's "making" you sound zealous. Your own words do. There is nothing necessarily wrong with zeal if it's for something worthwhile, though. That's why we have the word "overzealous."

I can't speak for anyone but myself, but if I had been an active participant in this thread I'd be pretty resentful about my contributions being characterized as "defensive." Strenuous disagreement =/= defensiveness.

 

[Siúil a Rúin]

To the bolded:

That is why we should be so grateful we are not alone trying to figure it all out! You neglected to mention the best resource, which is God's word (the bible, commandments, etc.) and his word directly to us that comes when we pray. Pastors or others, and our own impulses and leanings, cannot reliably guide us to what is right for us because others are fallible and we are too.

It is possible to draw many unhealthy conclusions from the Bible about relationships including polygamy in the OT and those who practiced it being highly praised, and then Paul's rejection of sexuality in which his position is that it is best to stay single and preach the word, but if your sex drive is too strong, then it is better to be married than to sleep around, basically. Most concepts in the Bible about relationships also promote unequal partnerships in which the woman is to obey the man. Jesus was ahead of his time in the treatment of women, but much of the Bible presents harmful relationship scenarios.

If I cannot make a move until I have deep self-awareness then I'm in a bit of a quandary, because I have never really known myself even though I have had times where I thought I did. Thankfully God knows me perfectly. That is why I rely on him to be in the driver's seat. Plus our weaknesses, strengths, and sexual orientation will change over time (hopefully! because who likes monotony and stagnation?), making those things unreliable as well.

This is good that you have the self-awareness. You have some assumptions here, like that sexual orientation changes over time. This is an unfounded statement and does not apply to everyone. I think the main issue some people, including myself, have with some of the statements you have made is that they are presented as universal truths, when it is clear they do not apply to everyone. There is no issue with these applying to you.

But if they would not be able to connect with them sexually, then they would never love them enough to in the first place. That is why it is imperative that LOVE lead, because then you know the sexuality from that will be pure. Sex first will not guarantee good love... and I choose the word 'good' here intently, because only God is good.

It is not only Christians, or even people who refer to "God" who value love connected with sex. This is true for Christians, Muslims, Buddhist, Neo-Pagans, and many others, even some atheists. There are even perfectly reasoned approaches to only having sex when a meaningful connection is made. The concept that only god is love can lead people to devalue any compassion and kindness that is not associated with that label.

It is possible to love someone without being able to connect sexually. While it is possible to connect sexually without love, you are orienting the two concepts in an unrealistic manner. There is a way the two need to intermingle.

I'm wondering if some of your assumptions result from the whole inferior Se aspect of being an INFJ. I find my connection to the concrete world to be more fluid than most people, and I wonder if you are expressing some of this same way of processing.

 

[Rasofy]

All that agape talk and stuff makes me wonder whether you need an hormone replacement therapy.