Some Christians May Have Special Insight into Human Sexuality

[Blaise (imported)]

but most churches have said stupid things about our sexuality. Taking what they say seriously is difficult.

[sag111 (imported)]

Old Softee i am not sure just what you are trying to say but if any church ever teaches indifference towards another person nomatter who he may be it is wrong and that church should be avoided at all costs.

I feel in most caces it is the people and not the church that do wrong for i have known many who go to church and pat themselves on the back and go out and preach hatred toward somone who thay disagree or dont understand .Now i feel this is very hypocrital and unjust and thair lies the worst sin of all.And i also feel that if thair is a problem with the church it is that thay dont teach about who god is and what he expects of us christions and it sure isnt hate.

Now as i have said many times here befor on this site we are to love his children nomatter who they may be or what thay beleave in.And as long as i am alive i will teach love and tolerance to all my brothers and sisters And as for the archives as long as i am part of this group i will love you with all my hart

[JesusA (imported)]

Old Softee / sag111,

Both of you have demonstrated many times that you really are what far too many “Christians” only claim to be. You are both valued members of this community. Thank you for your many contributions.

[NZ_Master_John (imported)]

Ummmm.

I hit the reply button with the intention of making some witty profound statement asking why anyone would take anything a religious person would say seriously.

But the witty and profound sounded nasty and bigotted (just like the churchy peoples) so you get boring instead.

[Blaise (imported)]

Old Softee / sag111,

Both of you have demonstrated many times that you really are what far too many “Christians” only claim to be. You are both valued members of this community. Thank you for your many contributions.

Thank you. This board means a lot to me. I immensely appreciate it.

[Blaise (imported)]

Ummmm.

I hit the reply button with the intention of making some witty profound statement asking why anyone would take anything a religious person would say seriously.

But the witty and profound sounded nasty and bigotted (just like the churchy peoples) so you get boring instead.

Sorry about that!

[Sac_mec (imported)]

I'm pleased, delighted to see this thread has developed the way it has.

It is very true that the Christians who contribute, or who have contributed above more importantly, show by their actions and concern that their spirit and their concerns are for all Eunuch Community members. Sag 111, your comments are as always written from your heart and it is this aspect of Christian Love which people can see show's that your depth of humanity and love is genuine

and that you never look down your nose at anyone.

Religion receives such "bad press" by the Evangelical bigots whose

bile and hatred is seen as just that. I'm not going to snear at the public face of intolerance that is being shown by several religions because within all faith groups there are vast numbers of Christians who consider, reflect and reject

certain "party lines". The action of any person with love in their heart shines through - 'nuff said really! One special word of praise to Richard Kirker for his years of hard work within the Gay Christian Movement here in England -

I may not perceive myself as "christian" but I respect those who prove without

preaching at the rest of us, that they are. Good on you!

[Dave (imported)]

I'm reading a book on the assasination of Julius Caeser by Michael Parenti and he states unequivically that the ancient Romans used to carry on about homosexuals in the same manner that we hear about today. They criticize their political opponents for being effeminate, catamites, corrupting youth, and sodomy.

Now please don't remind me that Roman civilization had lots of homosexuality, it did and they ruling elite were being hypocrites... I know, I know, but politically, Cato, Cicero and others accused their opponents of this behaviour and made the damage stick.

Julius Caeser himself was a catamite (a youth maintained for sexual purposes) and had many well-known homosexual relationships. Most Romans in Ancient Rome had them also. However, To force sex on a man (sodomy) was considered as taking his citizenship. However, if you weren't a citizen, then you couldn't lose citizenship. so your ass was fair game. Plebs and slaves beware... Apparently, oral sex (blow jobs) did not damage your citizen ship, that's doing the act, not submitting to the act. (even today, rough trade considers blow jobs as not queer. Nor do they think screwing another makes them queer because the recipient asked for it, - - - what a rationalization)

Also, the Roman upper class and military could "adopt" boys and sponsor them into their social strata. In essence, raise them as their own children, but they also had sex with them.

... not to mention prostitution, which was rampant in ancient Rome and everyone participated in (in one form or another) .

I guess that the point of all this is that the bahaviour we're discussing is not new and is not the province of just our current religious conservatives. . . .

[Blaise (imported)]

I'm reading a book on the assasination of Julius Caeser by Michael Parenti and he states unequivically that the ancient Romans used to carry on about homosexuals in the same manner that we hear about today. They criticize their political opponents for being effeminate, catamites, corrupting youth, and sodomy.

Now please don't remind me that Roman civilization had lots of homosexuality, it did and they ruling elite were being hypocrites... I know, I know, but politically, Cato, Cicero and others accused their opponents of this behaviour and made the damage stick.

Julius Caeser himself was a catamite (a youth maintained for sexual purposes) and had many well-known homosexual relationships. Most Romans in Ancient Rome had them also. However, To force sex on a man (sodomy) was considered as taking his citizenship. However, if you weren't a citizen, then you couldn't lose citizenship. so your ass was fair game. Plebs and slaves beware... Apparently, oral sex (blow jobs) did not damage your citizen ship, that's doing the act, not submitting to the act. (even today, rough trade considers blow jobs as not queer. Nor do they think screwing another makes them queer because the recipient asked for it, - - - what a rationalization)

Also, the Roman upper class and military could "adopt" boys and sponsor them into their social strata. In essence, raise them as their own children, but they also had sex with them.

... not to mention prostitution, which was rampant in ancient Rome and everyone participated in (in one form or another) .

I guess that the point of all this is that the bahaviour we're discussing is not new and is not the province of just our current religious conservatives. . . .

Some New Testament scholars argue that what we take to be opposition to what we now name homosexual behavior was really opposition to the exploitation of children. I am trying to recall the proper references. I think that the famous preacher Peter Gomes would agree with this assessment.

[Pueros]

I refer back to Dave's post.

Despite the hypocritical propaganda hurled against him, Julius Caesar became master of the Roman world until his assassination. However, despite the ethically irreverant and misplaced maliciousness facing him, which must cause Jesus Christ to squirm wherever He now is, let's hope that a certain New England bishop does not face the same fate!

PUEROS