old bones

a change of clothes and a warm towel
to wipe away the flood waters
from soggy skin
patching the superficial damage
ignoring the ghost in the bag
the wet clothes wrapped in plastic

rot takes hold, unchallenged
under fresh flannel and skin
in the delicate groin of the soul
pushing outwards
despite non-perishable meals
and casseroles in unfamiliar vessels

pruned skin and old flesh
a ghost is born by inner cloisters
shakes the framing of the ribcage
to call the thunder home
as a lighthouse calls the captain
and dares you to remember

a sheen of defeat
washes clean in choked sobbing
and the removal of drywall
when the gray face of denial
turns unexpectadly red in this immediate moment
and again
refusing to lie in the waterlogged bed
but gutting damaged walls
and grinding old bones to powder
before patching the body gently
and turning with the earth

the middle road #1

I couldn't not ignore the toll
nor could I face it clear

I didn't hear the silent note
but heard the nothing near

it tickled me, but not in joy
though it wasn't not in fear

I know it can't be far away
but I hope it isn't here

#65: of boiling water

hands in the middle
holding our youth
the centrifugal forces of our fingers
scatter us like seed pods
when we all tip over

the contortions of our bodies
define us in the grass
our minds left to ponder mysteries
traced in clouds below us

eventually we all find
a certain cave in a certain canyon
in which to pause the world and rest
between decision and action
another pile of laughing bodies
another shadowless sleeping world

on the other side of the mouth,
throat reaching magma earth,
face pock-marked with old age,
it is possible to lay again in tangles
of limbs and possibility

spread the fingers to exact degrees
to count the blades between them

But all the planning was lost before
in our games of circles
and crumpling friends
with clouds retaining shapes
of newer masses of water molecules
in deeper thought and contradiction
focused intently on feeling again
posed with eyes closed to pretend
our friends lay in the distance

#64: Of the conviction of explosives

II am a rocket ship.
Let me say that again, I am a Fucking Rocket Ship!

I am a rocket ship with lust-red tail fins, I am a rocket ship with matching red nose cone polished to mirrored steel, I am a rocket ship and I am Made.
To.
Fly.
There were tests in the cistern for my brothers and sisters but I am the lightning red rocket from hell that bettered the rest to pass the test to gain a name to win the fame to streak my red bolts across the sky and to have the balls to show you why I was made.
I was made for the mission.
Furnaced in the blast core, ceramic and foam, screwed tight to fly right, tests and tests and tests and tests and tests and years of fears. I am the liquid gold imagination wrought solid and hardened by a thousand geeks tweaking in the streets with snapping synapses calculating quadratics born in 80s video game attics - dust settling on the plastic shadows of models of the greatness of me to come, and now I'm born and tested and fueled and ready to make all those little men remember the little boy that dreamed that he was me, but that I be is enough in these the moments of the countdown.
In starting this mission a switching ignition of space-aged tradition sends blisters across a black tar mat canvass in the twilight of a summers eve.
My combustible notions anoint earth rock to motion in the powers of my physics:
pushing earth, pushing rocket -
pushing earth, pushing air -
pushing air, pushing earth, pushing rocket across a black tar mat canvass in the twilight of a summers eve.
From the moment i was born a bomb with direction i've waited to blaze out of orbit. Like a fish too big for the bowl I was born too big for this fishbowl world. The moment my fuses combined in the intellect of trajectory, my kinetic birth would have to be, flying high in the night off the coast of Florida.
In the spark of explosion of physics in motion the laws of the world disappear in the dark.
At the top of the world my drive to be alive burns seconds away from a parabola curled,
Away from the shield of the face of my cone, the race to the place brings heat out in space and pummels me up in the dark of the world in the night above Florida's coast.

A ringing stinging heat-clinging nothing drives dime sized holes in the hull of my cone in the acid atmosphere so close to dark silent space i crumple above the dome of the world, accelerating slower and slower and hanging there, rocket pulses turning inward burning from the inside, the geeks on the streets are screaming to beats of cars blasting rap music as I turn to some scrap shit hovering high in the sky, just not quite as high as I was meant to be, if I'd had the drive to see, or fuck that, just been the perfect me, I'd burn up the cold of space.
But the bomb with direction sputters to no direct-able perception and if I'm gonna be something it's not gonna be nothing, and I'll give you a show while I do it.
[I am a bomb.]
I am a Fucking Bomb that wakes you across the ocean when thousands of stars are born in the sky and fall in collectible charms that sit in charred fragments in a box in the garage. I am a bomb that excites molecules, I am a bomb that makes all ya'll fools, I am a bomb that destroys the dreams of teams of pocket protector dweebs. I am the bomb that makes the blats in the beats of blasting raps in the streets, and all the people you meet know me.
I am and I was and I will be,
I said "I will and you'll see me leave a black hole in your memory",
and there I live forever.

#63 Of the language of religion [part 3]

It is not my belief that children were ever in any capacity born with 6-shooter revolvers in hand. Owning guns is not something that happens upon birth (unless your parents fall into a very small minority of religious zealots). Owning a gun is something that comes with age, and hopefully a legal permit. It is by all respects a choice.

That choice is protected under the law, the same law that says you cannot kill humans also says that it's fine to kill animals and to have the super firepower to do it over and over and over, now without even needing to reload! It is a choice a small segment of the population makes, a small and powerful segment who have often felt their rights are violated. There is no "gun-luvin" gene, nor a mental illness to prescribe to hunters (not on the books, anyway) nor a hereditary condition (necessarily). Upon asking a person who likes to hunt why they enjoy hunting you may hear answers such as
"Cause it's fun" not to be confused with,
"Cause I like it" or even,
"Cause it's my Gawd Given Raight!"

Here continues the dialogue between myself and one such person: a study of inclusion vs exclusion, Christianity vs Democracy, Jesus vs the Gays.

* * * * *

Jack -- February 10 at 10:45pm
If we read John 14:6 closely we will see this, "Jesus saith unto him."
When Jesus says He's the only way we must believe Him. Jesus says this also in Luke 9:26,
"For whosoever shall be ashamed of me and of my words, of him shall the Son of man be ashamed, when he shall come in his own glory, and [in his] Father's, and of the holy angels."
We have to understand that Jesus's words are true and we must follow His words as evidenced in Luke 21:33,
"Heaven and earth shall pass away: but my words shall not pass away."

Gandhi is in Hell. It wasn't God's fault because Gandhi didn't believe that Jesus was his savior. God made the way for man and man must choose. There is no public record of him turning to Christ. Some people think if people do good works that gets them to Heaven but that's not true because it wouldn't be fair.
Thanks,
Jack

Colin -- February 10 at 11:58pm
I have found a voice through Gandhi:

"Everyone has faith in God though everyone does not know it. For everyone has faith in himself and that multiplied to the nth degree is God. The sum total of all that lives is God. We may not be God, but we are of God, even as a little drop of water is of the ocean."

"I came to the conclusion long ago … that all religions were true and also that all had some error in them, and whilst I hold by my own, I should hold others as dear as Hinduism. So we can only pray, if we are Hindus, not that a Christian should become a Hindu … But our innermost prayer should be a Hindu should be a better Hindu, a Muslim a better Muslim, a Christian a better Christian."

"I regard Jesus as a great teacher of humanity, but I do not regard him as the only begotten son of God. That epithet in its material interpretation is quite unacceptable. Metaphorically we are all sons of God, but for each of us there may be different sons of God in a special sense. Thus for me Chaitanya may be the only begotten son of God … God cannot be the exclusive Father and I cannot ascribe exclusive divinity to Jesus."

Colin

Jack -- February 11 at 8:55pm
Three things here stand out wrong to me.
1. I regard Jesus as a great teacher of humanity, but I do not regard him as the only begotten son of God.

John 3:16 says this, [Jesus is speaking] "For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life."

2. God cannot be the exclusive Father.

Gen 1:26a says, "And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness:"

3. I cannot ascribe exclusive divinity to Jesus.

Isaiah 7:14 says this, "Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel."
(Emmanuel, means in Hebrew “God with us.)

Thanks,
Jack

Colin -- February 11 at 9:43pm
You only responded with issues to the last quote, do you not have any issues with the first two Gandhi quotes?

I guess the reason I wanted to have an open dialogue with you Jack was to find some common ground. I'd love it if you told me that you liked some of what Gandhi said. He's a very important person, and a spiritual leader for many, including me.

-Colin

Jack -- February 12 at 7:38pm
Colin, I had responded to the three worst things that I seen that Gandhi said. As for 'all religions are true', Gandhi goes against what Jesus said in John 14:6, "Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me."
We have to make good choices. I'd rather believe the words of Jesus than Gandhi's because Jesus's words supersedes anybodies.
I'd rather follow Jesus as a spiritual leader than anyone else because He is God.
Was your Father in your life while you were growing up?
As for common ground, I think we are common in respecting people.
Sorry for not getting back with you sooner. I've been working on our plasma cutter for the last two days with our maintenance guys at work. I can't believe they were using Modicon Momentums with Modbus+. That's old stuff and proprietary.

Colin -- February 13 at 12:23am
Jack,

Yes my father was in my life while I was growing up. I had male figures around my whole life. It has been proven that homosexuality is a nature and not nurture phenomenon AllPsych - Homosexuality

As far as our common ground I think we have a different definition of respect, because I'm not sure if you are listening to what Gandhi is really saying here. He says that while he wishes everyone believed what he did, he can only ask that you believe the specifics of your religion as well as you can. He also asks that you do the same.

Let us say there is a man on the other side of the world known only to a small percentage of the population. He lives on an island not discovered by modern civilization. These islands still exist.

This man claims to be the son of god, and lets say that it is true. This man really is the son of god, and he tells the people of the island nation that he is Jesus come again, but they don't know who Jesus is because they've never encountered Christianity, so he has to describe Jesus.

He performs miracles, he cures the sick, he is preceded by a star in the east, and he dies for the sins of his people. This REALLY IS Jesus reborn in the flesh (John 3:14), only called by a different name.

Now you will tell me that the bible says that Jesus is the ONLY son of god, and so this is not possible, but the bible never says that he will not come in other forms... in fact in many references in the bible Jesus disguises himself in other forms to draw out the truth (Mark 16:12).

Is it not true that the son of god could have come in multiple forms throughout history for different cultures?

In truth the only way you can tell me that Jesus is the son of god is from the bible. There is no historian or outside record of Jesus actually being a real person let alone the only son of god. And in other religions, the holy book of that religion is called the word of god, and there is evidence in their holy book for another being named the son of god, or god himself, or multiple gods.

You do not have to believe these religions, but I believe to respect another person you must respect their views even if you don't agree with them.

I respect your relationship with god, and I think you should respect my relationship with god. By the same token I think you should respect an Islamic persons relationship with god. For example, I hold as much faith in your god as I do with mine as I do with the Islamic god (you must agree we pray to different ideas of god, but this does not mean we pray to different gods, only different human conceptions). I do not judge your conception of god to be any truer than my conception nor the Islamic mans. In all of our religions we have holy books and elders telling us who the true god is, and we must believe it wholeheartedly. It's our job as religious people to believe religiously, in other words illogically. I cannot use logic in these discussions, because your holy book will always be able to contradict me in however way you want to make it contradict me.

We live our lives by different rules, Jack. In your rule book it says that homosexuality is a sin. In my rule book this is not true. You will probably tell me at this point that the bible should be both of our rule books - but the US Bill of Rights tells me that I have freedom of religion, that I cannot be persecuted by any religion but my own, and neither can I persecute another by my own religion. The bible tells us in Hebrews 13:17 to obey our leaders, and leaders making the laws of our land. In this way Man's law is God's law, and you must allow me to conceive and be judged by my own holy book.

I have faith that in your life the rules you live by do better to suit your relationship with god, but we are different people, and we have different conceptions of god, and different laws to live by.

In my abstract nature that I am a homosexual man I have broken none of your religions major laws. The ten commandments do not state in any form that my love for my boyfriend is immoral, unnatural or unpure.

-Colin

Jack -- February 13 at 12:19pm
Did you feel love from your father?

In 1962, members Society of Medical Psychoanalysts lead by Irving Bieber published the results of a comprehensive study of 106 male homosexuals and 100 heterosexuals controls, both groups drawn from the patients in psychoanalysis clinics. This was not a one shot questionnaire, but one of the most in depth and authoritative studies of its kind ever done. The study involved over seventy therapists, 10 years of work, multiple evaluations and follows-ups. The questionnaires were filled out by the analysts with information gained in hours of patient sessions. The report provided numerous case histories and sought in every case to answer the question: Why did this man become homosexual? The report also included a careful analysis of why some men in the control group with apparently similar backgrounds did not become homosexual. Since 27% of the homosexual men had in the course of analysis become heterosexual, the differences between the 27% and those who did not become heterosexual were also analyzed.
Bieber, et al., found a pattern of detached and/or hostile-detached fathers. They concluded that: "Profound interpersonal disturbance is unremitting in the homosexual father-son relationship. Not one of the fathers (of homosexual sons)... could be regarded as reasonably 'normal' parents'."(Bieber 1962, p.114)

Jesus said the way to Heaven is through Him. It is exclusive and it's the 'only' way. We either believe what Jesus says or don't.
As for mark 16:12
This is not to be understood of any change in the shape of His body, or the features of His face; for as soon as their eyes were opened, which had been before held, they knew Him perfectly well: whereas, if there had been such an alteration made in Him, that He could not have been known for the same, there would have been no need of holding their eyes, that they should not know Him.
Even if Jesus did come in multiple forms, His message would be the same. He was prophesied throughout the whole Old Testament.

Concerning 'There is no historian or outside record of Jesus actually being a real person let alone the only son of god.'
There are over 18 ancient "non-Christian" sources for Christ walking the earth, doing miracles, dying on the cross and being raised from the dead. I'd like to say it again, "non-Christian" sources.
How can I respect Gandhi's views when he diss's my Savior?

Concerning 'we have holy books and elders telling us who the true god is, and we must believe it wholeheartedly.'
Here's what Jesus says in John 14:6 "Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me."
John 10:8 "All that ever came before me are thieves and robbers: but the sheep did not hear them."
John 10:9 "I am the door: 'by me' if any man enter in, he shall be saved, and shall go in and out, and find pasture."
Mark 13:22 "For false Christs and false prophets shall rise, and shall shew signs and wonders, to seduce, if [it were] possible, even the elect."
Mark 13:23 "But take ye heed: behold, I have foretold you all things."
Concerning islam. islam's god is the moon as evidenced on islamic nations flags with the crescent moon.

If we are going by the same rule book, why do you ignore 1Thess 4:3 "For this is the will of God, [even] your sanctification, that ye should abstain from fornication:"?

Concerning 'Heb 13:17', if the Government goes against the laws of God then it is our duty as Christians to not follow them because God's laws supersede mans. If they stay with the law of God then all is fine.

Concerning the 'Ten Commandments', Jesus summed them up into two. 1. Love the Lord thy God. 2. Love your neighbor as yourself.
Colin, if we love the Lord we would follow His commands. It is the Will of God that we shouldn't fornicate. And even if you do get married to a man someday that is still wrong because God said a man shall leave His father and mother and cleave to his 'wife'.
If Jesus is to be the Lord of our life, we must surrender our life to Him and not do our own things but do what He wants us to do.

Thanks,
Jack

Colin -- February 13 at 1:18pm
Jack,

As for your study released in 1962, it is outdated. More than that it is not a scientific study, but a psychological study. Psychology is science in the realm of how we interact, but homosexuality does not begin in the way we behave, but the way we are created. Since 1962 more reliable evidence has been brought forward that moves homosexuality out of the psychological realm (what the brain thinks) and into the biological realm (what the brain is). The evidence I gave you was from studies conducted in 2004 and later, they are more reliable and supersede previous studies.

Because my brain is structured in a way that determines my sexuality, it is not in the nurturing process (anything concerning my relationship with my father) but how I was formed in utero that has determined who I am. This is how god made me, and how could god make me the way I am if she didn't want me to be the way I am?

To answer your question about my father, my father was loving, yes. My father and I have a healthy relationship. That being said, every boy has a hard relationship with his father. There were times when our relationship was hard, but it did not diminish our love, nor did it somehow turn me homosexual. I do not accept these claims, because quite frankly they are ridiculous.

Gandhi never dissed Jesus. This is also ridiculous. Gandhi said that Jesus was a great teacher. He said that he did not believe Jesus was the ONLY son of god because we are ALL children of god.

As far as the Islamic religion worshiping the moon, I cannot agree or disagree because I don't know that much about Islam... What I do know is that our religion worships the sun (the son of god). We are always talking about the light of god, and good is represented as light, and that which creates light is the sun of god. For that matter our flag is covered by stars, far away suns, and so we all worship celestial objects in some way.

Your reading of the ten commandments goes beyond the words. Love the lord thy god, and I do. I love all that he provides, and all that he creates. God created me, and she gave me my sexuality and he bore me at a time when my sexuality was accepted, and for this I love her the most. If God had put the lust of murder in my heart, this is something I would have to battle, but why would I battle the will to love my fellow man. Doesn't Jesus say this in many ways? Love thy fellow man, I do. I love him in the most physical way I can; sexually.

Jesus never denounces homosexuality. Not one time in the bible does Jesus the man denounce homosexuals, nor anyone, even the lepers, because god loves all her children.

It is interesting that god never speaks to women about leaving their parents and being faithful to her husband. Why does god not address women?

The study I sent you a link to matched sexual patterns in the homosexual male brain to those in heterosexual female brains - the fact is that the brain structure of the homosexual man is more similar to the heterosexual female than the heterosexual man. For this reason biologically god has created us in a simple and crude language "with the brain of a female in the body of a man".

You said that god said a man shall leave his father and mother and cleave to his wife. Wife in this case is a title, and not a sex. God does not say man shall leave his father and mother and cleave to his woman. What is the difference between wife and woman? One is a title of "otherness" and one is a sex. My boyfriend is my "other" AND I could argue a wife, because he has the "brain of a female in the body of a man."

[in this email i have regarded god as "she" and not "he" because god is sexless, as is the title "wife" when observed from a non-literal translation]

Jack -- February 14 at 1:24pm
Do you think some of the information in the AllPsych article are outdated (1930's)? I thought Psychology was the study of the psychi.
Concerning 'but homosexuality does not begin in the way we behave, but the way we are created'. God never creates a homosexual person but the devil does suggest that to people and some people fall for the lie and some don't.
The attempt to prove that homosexuality is determined biologically has been dealt a knockout punch. An American Psychological Association publication includes an admission that there's no homosexual "gene" -- meaning it's not likely that homosexuals are born that way.
Concerning 'but how I was formed in utero that has determined who I am.' You were formed as a man. Since you formed in the utero as a man be a man. That's how God made you and God is not a 'she'.
When a boy is brought up without a dad or the dad is hard with the boy, or the the mom is overbearing, the boy does not feel that intimate love with dad (rejection). The boy tries to get that intimate love from other men and usually falls into homosexuality trying to get that intimate love. But that love is a counterfeit love. Real love comes from a a intimate relationship with Christ when the person is grown up.
Gandhi did diss Jesus because he said he wasn't the Son of God.
God even said He was going to send His Son and God overrides Gandhi.

Christ is not the sun but the Son. We don't worship the sun but the Son. The sun is created by God. It is God who we need to worship.

Concerning 'Love the lord thy god, and I do.'
If you love the Lord then you would do what He wants and the Will of God is to abstain from fornication.
Again, God is not a she. God is a he. When God created man He said let us create man in our image. If God was a she then she would of said, 'let us create woman in our image'. That didn't happen and I would like to encourage you to not believe that God is a she.

Jesus said a man and woman were to be together. He didn't say homosexuals. Jesus told the woman who was caught in adultery to sin no more. Since anything outside of marriage (marriage being between a man and woman) is sin, like adultery, fornication, etc...
we need to stop sinning.
And again God is not a woman.

God addressed women in Genesis and they are to be a help meet for the man.

Concerning 'the brain structure of homosexual men compared to women', Of his own study Levay states;
"The observations were made on adults who had already been sexually active for a number of years. To make a really compelling case, one would have to show that these neuroanatomical differences existed early in life - preferably at birth. Without such data, there is always at least the theoretical possibility that the structural differences are actually the result of differences in sexual behavior - perhaps on the 'use it or lose it' principle."

Concerning 'You said that god said a man shall leave his father and mother and cleave to his wife.'
I didn't say that. God said that and so did Jesus. I'm just writing down what they said.
The Strong's Concordance word for wife is female. Woman is opposite of man.

Concerning your boyfriend, 'because he has the "brain of a female in the body of a man.'
How do you know that?

Concerning, '[in this email i have regarded god as "she" and not "he" because god is sexless, as is the title "wife" when observed from a non-literal translation]'.
I don't know what translation your using but it's trash and does not hold up against the most reliable manuscripts.

Thanks,
Jack

Colin Hill February 14 at 9:35pm
Jack,

I'm going to let the judgement that I was made by the devil slip by, and jump right into the science.
Just because there is no specific gene that can be labeled "the gay gene" doesn't mean that homosexuality is not biological. The report I sent you and many many many other scientific reports to support these claims. As evidence, please google "gay genetics" and look at any of the first ten results. They all support a Nature over Nurture theory. Every credible scientific (not psychological) study in the last ten years supports these theories. They are truth. And if they contradict your reading of the bible, then it is possible your interpretation of the bible is incorrect.

There are over 24,000 sects of Christianity. Some of them believe the virgin mary is saintly, some believe Jesus was a real person, some believe homosexuality is not a sin, some believe in the forgiveness of sins, some believe in the canonization of saints... twenty-four thousand different ways to read the same book. While the bible is the word of god, our understanding of the bible is tainted. Mine is, and so is yours. As proof, did you understand the bible as a child? or have you been refining and learning more about the bible as you grow older? if you fall into the second of these categories, couldn't it be possible that there are some things you believe about the bible that could be misinterpreted?

Honestly we could quote scripture to each other till revelations, but at the end of the day we have different definitions of some very similar things.

For example: I learned in your last reply that you indeed believe that god is a male based on the reading that god made Adam in his own image. You denied that god is feminine several times. Just to be clear, I do not actually believe that god has a vagina. I do not believe that god has birthing hips or breasts that produce milk, but I am starting to believe that your god has a penis. Does god have a penis? Does the holy spirit?

If the purpose of a woman is only to be the companion of a man as defined by the bible, then count me out! Call me a feminist because I think woman have as much right to answer the word (and the call) of god, if not more so.

When I hear things like "god created man in his own image" there are several possibilities to what this may mean. I'll go to Webster's for help.

"Man":
1. an adult male person, as distinguished from a boy or a woman.
2. a member of the species Homo sapiens or all the members of this species collectively, without regard to sex: prehistoric man.
3. the human individual as representing the species, without reference to sex; the human race; humankind: Man hopes for peace, but prepares for war.

The first definition defines not only the male sex, but a mature male. After this the definition becomes more broad to include women as "man" because women are "human". This is an equal and open interpretation of the phrase "god created man in his own image," and it is the one to which I subscribe.

In our Declaration of Independence it states "all men are created equal," and we today fully understand that this use of "men" incorporates women, african-americans and homosexuals, though it was not always this way. Until the 1960s, only 50 years ago, a black man was not given the same rights as a white man. Just like your understanding of the bible, it takes a long time for the laws to really encompass all of the goodness of this Declaration, a document that has in many ways grown from the insights presented in the bible. Still our laws do not grant that I as a homosexual man am equal to you as a heterosexual man. My pursuit of happiness is disrupted by the far reaches and persecution of religion. It is safe to say our nation has a ways to go before we are truly held responsible for the liberties granted in the first lines of our nations most sacred document.

In the very first chapter of the very first book of the bible, Genesis 1:27, there is a huge divide on which you fall on one side and I on the other. How can we ever speak about the bible as a whole if we cannot even agree on the first page?

Jack -- February 14 at 11:52pm
Concerning 'I'm going to let the judgement that I was made by the devil slip by'.
The devil cannot make anything, he counterfeits the real thing. I didn't say you were made by the devil. I said, "but the devil does suggest that to people and some people fall for the lie and some don't."

Levay further states,
"It’s important to stress what I didn’t find. I did not prove that homosexuality is genetic, or find a genetic cause for being gay. I didn’t show that gay men are born that way, the most common mistake people make in interpreting my work. Nor did I locate a gay center in the brain."

Concerning 'There are over 24,000 sects of Christianity.'
I don't believe that my understanding is tainted. I don't misinterpret anything. It is written out plain and clear in the Bible that if you are fornicating then your not in the Will of God.

Concerning 'Does god have a penis? Does the holy spirit?'
Jesus even says that God is a he.
John 4:24, "God [is] a Spirit: and they that worship 'him' must worship [him] in spirit and in truth."
So you must make a choice. Is Jesus lying or is He telling the truth?

Concerning 'If the purpose of a woman'. Women can answer the call to God according the scripture. They can be prophetess, they can teach women and children, they can speak in tongues, etc...
But they have to be under the authority of a man because the woman was deceived in the garden.

Concerning 'god created man in his own image'.
God created man and then took the man's rib and made woman.

Concerning 'In our Declaration of Independence'.
Thomas Jefferson first used the phrase 'all men are created equal' in the Declaration of Independence as a rebuttal to the growing political theory of the day: the Divine Right of Kings.
It has nothing to do with being equal in marriage.
Not giving rights to blacks was wrong. But trying to justify that for same sex marriage is far from it. A black person cannot help that their skin is black. Being homosexual is a choice. It is wrong to redefine marriage. Marriage was God's idea, not mans.
What makes the homosexual movement's aspiration to overturn thousands of years of universally recognized marriage being between a man and woman?

Concerning 'How can we ever speak about the bible as a whole if we cannot even agree on the first page?'.
It is evident throughout the whole Bible which spans 1500 years and was written by different authors from all walks of life that marriage is between a man and woman and that God is a he.
I don't want to be rude and please don't take this as rude. I just want to tell you this because I am concerned for you. It seems that you are doing the opposite of everything that God says not to do in the Bible and you try to justify it.
1. Your fornicate with your partner and God says not to fornicate.
2. You believe that God is a she but throughout the whole Bible He is a he.
3. You believe marriage should be between two men. God says that marriage is between a man and a woman.
There are two powers in this world, God and the devil. If we don't do what God wants then we are doing the things of the devil. The devil is the adversary of God and the opposite of God. The devil does not want us to do the things of God. Just like back in Genesis, the devil told Eve, "Did God say?"
When I was young I used to listen to the devil. After reading the Bible, God convicted me of my sin and I repented (changed my mind) and I confessed my sins. When the devil suggested that I sin again, I tell him to "peddle his peanuts somewhere else" because 'it is written'. I gotta tell you that the devil is a great deceiver and can change into an angel of light.
The devil speaks to us in our own voice making us think it's us thinking those bad things when it really isn't us. We must resist him and not give in to him.
Thanks,
Jack

Colin -- February 15 at 8:44pm
Jack,

I know we are speaking about the same subject, but in totally different languages. I have only really begun reading the bible again, and you have quoted it with such fury that I know it's been a part of your life forever.

My favorite part of your last email was when you really broke out of your shell from behind the same biblical words to express to me how you really feel. I hope this comes from frustration, because I am frustrated.

I read the book of Genesis last night, and at several times I thought of you. I thought how unfair it was to ask you if god had a penis (and how you never really answered that question), I tried to imagine how you would read the words... and I read some things I hadn't read before.

One of my favorite portions was anytime before the tower of Babel when god referred to himself as "us" or "we" or "our", (Gen 1:26 Gen 3:22 and Gen 11:7) but then after he was always just "the Lord god" or "god in the highest". The Lord god makes it seem like he's the leader of more gods... and I wondered why this was never embraced.

It seems to me that when the people split into their own languages, they all carried with them a god, but that the Hebrew god remained with Abrahm.

There are many websites devoted to debunking this... but really that doesn't matter for the purposes of my point. If this doesn't match your reading of the bible, it is only to give an example that there are many different and valid ways to understand the scripture. If it is not valid to you, it wouldn't matter because it is valid to me. In this way your bible and mine are different. It seems to me in Genesis that there are multiple gods. This is because the language "us" and "we" and "our" have told me so.

The language is not plain because we interpret it differently. We as humans use our words to convey something that is inexpressible in the written word; God. That's why the Jews don't even write the name of god, they write "yhwh" in the most liberal settings.

We use language to point to something, and sometimes the words point a little vaguely, and the bible is full of these words. That's why there are many ways to interpret them. That's why a divine book can turn into a message that is not divine. Some people live their lives by the old testaments god, and spread messages of "fire and brimstone", what do you think of these people?

-Colin
* * * * *

#61: Of the language of religion [part 2]

What happens when an unstoppable force meets an immovable object? Nothing if these forces are completely opposed. Mathematically they will reject each other, the unstoppable force turns away to be unstoppable in other capacities. It will not be halted, is not halted by turning away, and both truths are satisfied. The immovable object has not yielded, and the unstoppable force has not stopped.
But what if the immovable object allows an unstoppable force not to pass the boundaries it occupies, but to glide along its surface... what if they share something? what if the object allows the force to enter its walls, but not pass through. what if the unstoppable force finds itself the only light in the darkness of an immovable object? I imagine a circling conch shell design in fibonacci sequences, the light of our force squeezes through the darkness of immobility, though never past it.

This is the correspondence I have with Jack; never ending, never halting, never budging, exponential, full of light and dark, ...

1, 1, 2, 3, 5, 8, 13, 21, 34, 55, 89, 144, 233, 377, 610, 987...
* * * * *

Jack -- February 10 at 12:00pm
Hey Colin, I haven't forgot about you and our conversation. I'll get a reply out to you soon.
I was wondering if I could ask a favor from you. There was a good message today on 'Love Worth Finding' by Adrian Rogers. The title of the message today was called, 'Unmasking satan's lies'. Here's the link if you want to listen to it: Love Worth Finding
I listen to it the Windows Media format.
Have a great day.
Thanks,
Jack

Colin -- February 10 at 2:02pm
Dear Jack,

Realizing you have not responded to my previous message I'd like to take a moment to respond to the audio that you sent me. Since it does not directly fall into the pretense of our previous messages I would like to address it outside of the realm of these messages. There is only a moment when sexuality is addressed, and this is the only way I will speak about homosexuality.

There are many claims made in this message, many I agree with. I especially liked the dissection of satan in the garden of eden, because it is this literary distinction that still holds me to the church. This is truly the word of god. The areas of the sermon I do not relate to and have problems with are the areas where the pastor has read past these words to tell us something about ourselves. I will use quotes around what was said in the audio and respond afterwards.

"The closest lies to the truth are the most dangerous" Dr. Rogers makes the case that a clock 5 minutes from correct is more dangerous than a clock that is 5 hours off because of course we know that a clock 5 hours wrong is wrong. I agree with this claim, but I found myself being warned at the beginning of the video because the Dr. is trying to tell us the truth of something. In the bible we are told that we are all sinners, and if this is the case than the Dr. is a sinner, and in sin lives the devil, and the devil is made of lies, and so even in a small percentage the Dr. is a liar. He may not know he is lying, but his words cannot be as pure as the word of god. As he is speaking of god you could say that his words are the "closest lies to the truth" and so his argument defeats himself. He does tell truths, but he also tells lies. I hope to show you how I see his lies.

"a whole generation are going to hell in a handbasket for experimenting; experimenting with drugs, experimenting with sexuality" Here Dr. Rogers makes the claim against experiential religion, that you should trust in the word of god and not experience. Dr. Rogers is in fact giving you the experience of listening to him, and so it is not the word of god, but the word of one man. In my personal religion the only true path to god is to find god in the words of the bible, and the words of the god inside yourself. Later in the message he talks about how the god cannot be inside yourself, but this is also an analogy that many Christians use. That jesus' blood is in us, that he lives in us, that god lives in us, that the holy spirit lives in us, and so it must be that a small piece of god is inside us.

Experientially I believe it is possible to find god by "experimenting" with the god in ourselves. Take hallucinogenic substances for instance... While it may not give us any greater truth, many people claim to see the face of god and speak to god while they are under the influence of these substances. It is experiential, yes, but that does not mean we do not gain experience from the experience. At the very least these substances allow us to see things differently, to see beauty in the ordinary and to be a person we usually are not. This differing of experience is what allows these people to touch god, and it should not be thrown out on account of the fact that it is a "drug". The word "drug" is meant to scare us, but what is so scary about plants that occur in nature. God said you may partake freely of any fruit in my garden, and this is the fruit of nature. Let us experience nature with a natural tool.

"Pantheism humanizes god." In some pagan religions the belief is that god is in everything, the rocks, the trees, the animals, the dirt, and the people. It may shock you, but one of these pagan religions is Christianity. If god was not in the rock than how could the rock exist? The rock is part of god, as are we all! How could there be a case for any other view?

"reincarnation is something that will lead you away from the path of god." Reincarnation is VITAL to the Christian tradition. You will be born again in Christ, Jesus died for your sins so you may be born again. Dr. Rogers limits the view of reincarnation by speaking scientifically about coming back as a specific bug or a celebrity, but what he should do is look at the words metaphorically (an exercise I challenge any Christian to do...). Jesus takes away the sins of our previous life and allows us to be born again.

I'd like to show you two more sides to this argument.

The first is very fundamental: every night we fall asleep and every morning we wake, this is a promise jesus makes to us, that we will live on come the morning. Every day can be seen as a reincarnation of the person we once were, every morning the chance to lead a new and better life. If you do wrong then the morning you wake to will be a hell compared to the life that you could have. If you break a commandment then every day thereafter you will have to live with the consequences. This is truly hell.

The second is for the case of Karma, another "eastern philosophy". Karma essentially boils down to you get what you pay for, and this philosophy is also found in the Christian tradition. As I made the case for before, if you break a commandment of god then you reap what you sow. Karma is not some made believe thing that floats in the air above us any more than god is a make believe thing that floats in the air above us. Karma is another word for god.

A major concern of mine is that Eastern religions make very strong cases for living a good life, for living a life in god, and yet they are shut down by the Christian tradition. You never hear these other churches talking about how their path is the only way to god. In fact you could make the case that the eight-fold path in Buddhism is similar to the path you must make in Christianity. These Eastern religions are inclusive, as Christianity is very exclusive. It's similar to American politics where we say "My way is right because your way is wrong"... where we try to win political points just by putting the other down. Christianity is as valid as any other religion, and these religions can enrich each other just by looking past the specifics.

There are numerous religions that have figures born on December 25th, that have 12 apostles, that were born of the virgin, that were betrayed by their brother, that died and rose three days later... so why can't we learn from our separate religions? Because Christianity sees one view as right and others as wrong? Every religion is valid, and every religion has ways of seeing past the specifics and touching deeper truths. If you would like some specifics of the argument I have made here I will provide you with a link which is attached below.

Thank you for your audio link. I enjoyed listening to it a lot,
Colin

Zeitgeist

Jack -- February 10 at 8:09pm
Colin, thank you for your patience in my response. It does take time to respond with kids and work.
That is interesting what you said about the procreation and the Christian world view. I never knew that. Do you have any other information on that?

Concerning the potential for injury, you mentioned this, "There are men homo and heterosexual who sleep around with other men, these are the men most likely to transmit disease."
Would the heterosexual men be called heterosexual if they sleep around with other men?
According to this website:
"Syphilis cases in San Francisco spiked upward last year (08), ending a three-year decline in rates of the sexually transmitted disease. The reversal of fortune in the city's effort to eliminate cases of the STD has prompted health officials to revive their Healthy Penis campaign, which will return next week. The successful social marketing effort had been retired in 2006, after a five-year run.
According to preliminary data for 2008, the city recorded a 66 percent increase in primary and secondary cases of syphilis, a rise of 339 cases last year compared to the 204 cases reported in 2007. Total early syphilis cases rose 55 percent, going from 472 cases in 2007 to 658 cases last year."
To me that means more homosexual men are getting syphilis.

Concerning 'that you do not have to have anal sex to be gay.'
I agree with that.
According to the Gay and Lesbian Medical Association Press Release, "Ten Things Lesbians Should Discuss with Their Health Care Providers" (July 17, 2002) lesbians are also at higher risk for STDs and other health problems than heterosexuals.

Concerning 'questions about yourself', you didn't mention anything about a father. Did you have a father in your life while growing up?
Concerning 'It was something that I felt'. Did you ever think those feelings were wrong and they might not have been from God?
Were you ever molested as a kid?
Concerning 'I still hope to be a father one day'. You can be a father and have a wife and have kids. There's nothing better than that on the earth. I've been married for 15 years and it keeps getting better and better. Marriage between a man and woman is a mirror of our relationship with Christ without the physical stuff if you know what I mean.

Concerning my wife. I am more understanding than she is concerning homosexuals. She will hold nothing back on them and will tell them up front, 'if you continue in the homosexual lifestyle then your going straight to hell if you don't repent of your sin.'

Thanks,
Jack

Colin Hill February 10 at 8:33pm
Jack,

I'm going to be briefer with this message.

When I said, "There are men homo and heterosexual who sleep around with other men, these are the men most likely to transmit disease," what I should have said was that homo and heterosexual men sleep around. They cheat, a lot of men do. These men are the ones likely to have STDs. If you ask me, they deserve it, but that is not a question of homosexual sin. That's a different sin altogether you have a problem with, no?

I do have a father, we have a healthy relationship.

Honestly I was a little offended when you suggested that the only way for me to have a child is by having a woman. This is something I would like to stress to you, being gay means I'm not attracted to women. I never have been and I never will be. There have been girls all my life I have loved, but I never wanted to have sex with them, and sex is a very important part of relationships. I have hoped and prayed even that I could learn to think a woman is sexually attractive, but these prayers were never answered. I am not going to change my homosexual lifestyle, because it is valid. It is possible to live in god and be a homosexual. It is possible to adopt, and one day there will be a way for two men to have a child with the power of technology.

I was never molested as a child. This is not how someone becomes a homosexual. It has been proven that sexuality is built into my genes, into our genes. It is a part of me, and how could a part of me be anything other than a part of god? I do not believe homosexuality is a sin, I believe rape is a sin, I believe cheating on your loved one is a sin, I believe being in a relationship without sexual attraction is a lie (a sin), but homosexuality is just a fact of life. There have been homosexuals since the beginning of man, and the homosexual act, the love of my fellow man, is not unnatural.

Jack -- February 10 at 9:40pm
Colin, I answered your post before your last one above. I'd like to respond to your post about Dr. Adrian Rogers now.

Concerning Dr. Adrian Rogers and sinning. Do you believe that he is saying lies because you don't agree with him?

Concerning experiences. If our experiences don't match up to the Word of God then they aren't right. I've never heard 'the words of the god inside yourself' before.
If we are born again then the Holy Spirit (who is God) lives in our spirit. See this website for an example:
http://orgs.unt.edu/christianstudents/tracts/mystery.html

You had mentioned, "Experientially I believe it is possible to find god by "experimenting" with the god in ourselves."
If I'm understanding you correctly, I don't believe there is a god in ourselves. The creation cannot be greater than the creator.
I believe when drugs are taken, evil spirits deceive people in thinking that they are talking and seeing God. God wants us to be in full control of our minds. When we take drugs we aren't in control and that gives the devil an opportunity to deceive us.

Concerning the 'Pantheism humanizes god'. I don't believe that God is in a rock or that Christianity is paganism. God resides in Heaven and in the spirits of those that are born again. God can create things and not be in them. He sure isn't in the devil.

Concerning reincarnation, he was talking about being put back into a animal or insects body. The Bible states that it is destined for many to die once and then goes to the judgment. There is no coming back. Once your dead your dead. Concerning Jesus taking away our sins, that is called transformation not reincarnation.

Concerning karma, I don't believe that karma is another name for God because you said, 'karma essentially boils down to you get what you pay for." Christ took our payment for sins if we believe in Him.

Concerning eastern religions, the reason why they are shut down is because of John 14:6. Jesus said that He is the way, the truth and the life and no man can come to the Father but through Him. That is what Jesus said.
That excludes every other religion on the planet. The truth is embodied in a man and that man in Jesus. We can't look past what Jesus says.

Concerning 'figures born on December 25th, that have 12 apostles, that were born of the virgin, that were betrayed by their brother, that died and rose three days later'.
Those were after Christ and the 12 disciples. No one knows what day Jesus was born. I myself celebrate Jesus every day.

I wanted to thank you for your patience again in waiting for my responses.
Thanks,
Jack

Colin Hill February 10 at 10:05pm
Jack,

I think this conversation may have gotten too big... One question.

In John 14:6 Jesus is saying that he is the only way to god, but really John is saying it. These are the words that John has written.

I need you to understand as I do that there are other ways to god, there are other valid religions. Gandhi was not a Christian yet I cannot believe he is in hell because he did not follow Jesus.

One question: is Gandhi in heaven or hell?

Jack -- February 10 at 10:29pm
Concerning being briefer with your message.
Your right, men do sleep around be it homosexuals or heterosexuals and transmit diseases.

Was your father there for you when you were growing up?

Concerning 'I am not going to change my homosexual lifestyle, because it is valid.' If we really believe in God we will believe that a man and woman are to be together in marriage. Anything outside of that is sin. As Paul said it is the Will of God to abstain from fornication. It is not possible to live in God and fornicating with anyone because we aren't doing what God tells us do. It is the opposite of what He says.
I don't think a man will ever be able to give birth to a baby.

Concerning 'I was never molested as a child.' It is a fact that people who are molested continue on with the molestation unless they are truly changed by Christ.
Psychiatrist Jeffrey Satinover says in his book 'Homosexuality and the Politics of Truth' that there is a “substantial, influential, and growing segment of the homosexual community that neither hides nor condemns pedophilia.”

You are correct that we are born with sexual genes because God put them there. If we have sex God expects it to be between a man and woman who are married. That was His plan from the beginning of creation. The devil counterfeits that.
Like I said before the homosexual act is not natural because God made the woman's part for sex. The man's anus is not made for sex.
Thanks,
Jack

#60: Of the language of religion [part 1]

Recently I've had a lot of time to work on... anything. Unfortunately this usually resulted with me playing video games, or staring at walls, or occasionally trolling the Fox News notice board on Facebook. In one of these notice board discussions I got into a heated debate with a few individuals who I tried to friend to make permanent connections. They all rejected my friendship and the chance for further correspondence, save one. Jack messaged me almost immediately and the debate started again, in a concrete manageable format. Though our talks were long, and both of us unwilling to accept the others proposals, it was an exercise I enjoyed... talking about homosexuality and religion with an extremely conservative Christian from the great nation of Texas. I still respect Jack because of his willingness to participate with me.

I want to share our discussion with you, and though it may be long, I assure you it is not finished. I do not have Jack's permission to post our thread, I have not asked. But I have changed his name. In some portions I responded before he had a chance to respond, and visa-versa. I have only changed Jack's name, and provided basic coding for links used in our discussions.

I would feel shameful posting these messages without first saying that in our discussions there were many parts of Jack's nature that offended me, and I know I offended him. We are very different. We are both ignorant to the culture of the other. We both have a lot to learn. I post these mostly because of the blinding differences in our languages, and as a case study should you ever encounter a person like Jack (or a person like me for that matter). Needless to say we expose our cultural weaknesses and both have a lot to learn about each other and ourselves.

I hope you enjoy, and check back in a few days for [part 2]
* * * * *

Jack -- February 2 at 8:29pm
Colin. I would like to continue our discussion about homosexuals if you want to.
Thanks,
Jack

Colin -- February 2 at 9:37pm
I would love to. Why don't you tell me how you feel, and we'll go from there.

Jack -- February 2 at 10:13pm
Remember how I kept telling you that homosexuals can't keep their hands off of people. Let me give you real examples in my life and my family's life.
1. My brother and myself was molested by our homosexual uncle who would frequent gay bars.
2. The same uncle made a move on my sister.
3. My best friends dads friend who was a homosexual tried to mess with me.
4. My best friends dad who was a homosexual molested me.
5. Homosexual hunters propositioned me after asking for directions.
6. A homosexual asked my cousin to come see his tennis rackets and tried to make a move on him.
7. A homosexual man running to be judge tried to make moves on me.
8. Our friends daughter was approached by a lesbian in high school and was told, "you will be mine."

So as you can see, homosexuals can't keep to themselves and I have many friends that have been messed with by homosexuals.
This is what the Bible states in 1Thess 4:3:
"For this is the will of God, [even] your sanctification, that ye should abstain from fornication:"
In layman's terms, it's God will to not be messing around outside of marriage (marriage being between a man and woman).
Thanks for adding me as your friend. I don't hate homosexuals I just don't like their sin. I know that they have to eat, work and live.

Colin -- February 2 at 10:42pm
I understand your concerns and your examples make sense. It is frustrating to see so many valid concerns against homosexuals, but if you'll let me I'd like to address some of these concerns.

From your examples I see that you were molested on several occasions by men which is unfortunate. What I would like you to understand is that these people who have wronged you are sick individuals. They should not be generalized to "gays" as a whole, but are creeps in their own way. In some cases they are pedophiles (since your uncle molested your sister I'm not sure you can count him as gay as much as a pedophile). Individuals are always representative of the group, but these individuals are pedophiles more than gay. Not all gays are pedophiles.

In more of your examples there was a proposition for sex which I will tell you is rampant in the gay community. It is also rampant in the straight community. For this reason you can't blame being horny on gays, it is a human issue. Men especially crave sex for genetic reasons. We are meant to spread our seed and propagate. It is biological. We crave sex and seek it out. This is also a gay issue as well as a straight issue.

As far as gays "trying to make moves" on you and your family, many gays never try to make moves on straight guys, and if you say, "I'm straight" 9 times out of 10 they are going to walk away. It is unfortunate that you encountered this so much, but think about how many times that gay man was rejected. Chances and statistics would say 9 times out of 10.

My real concern is that you have only met gay men and women in these uncharacteristic circumstances. So let me give you a few examples from my life.

1. I am a confirmed Catholic, and godfather to my cousin
2. I studied philosophy and religion in college, and I think it has deepened my relationship with God.
3. I have never solicited a straight person for sex.
4. I have never solicited a child for sex.
5. I have never engaged in sex outside of a monogamous relationship.

For these reasons I am fundamentally different from the homosexuals you outlined in your points. Because of this it is unfair to characterize me in the same light.

As far as sex outside of wedlock, i think you'll agree that as a whole America is fine with sex before marriage. You are not, which is totally valid. This is your religious right. Be lenient with me as I go over this next point - For the most part straight couples have sex outside of wedlock. For the most part Americans have sex before they turn 18. It is seen as a development, a stepping stone in life. I would predict 95/100 women are not virgins on their wedding day. This is not different in the gay lifestyle, and I know you have a problem with this across the board.

However, not recognizing any kind of marriage, or monogamy or spirituality in a gay man or woman is to animalize them to purely sexual creatures, which we are not. We have ideas and motives and loves just like you, and under the law we should be treated equally.

Jack -- February 3 at 11:00pm
Colin, thank you for your reply.
I'd like to start out by saying that the real definition of gay is happy.
The word has been wrongly changed in our society today.

I understand what your saying that pedophiles should not be generalized as homosexuals. But that's what myself, family and friends have went through. We can't come to any other conclusion but that homosexuals can't keep their hands off of people.

Your right, sex is rampant in the homosexual and straight community. But I believe there's difference even though both are still wrong.The straights are having the correct sex but they aren't married. The homosexuals are not having correct sex and not married. Both are sinning but the straights are with the correct people because the man parts fit the female parts.

This is what marriage is in the Bible:
Gen 2;18
And the LORD God said, [It is] not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him.

Did God make a man to be his help meet?
No, He didn't. He made a woman.

Gen 2:24 [Jesus is speaking]
Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.

Jesus reaffirms this thousands of years later in Mark 10:6-8

Genesis 1:28
And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth.

We can see in this verse that man and woman were to have sex to replenish the earth due to the disaster in the pre-adamic age where Lucifer messed up.

You had mentioned that America is fine with sex before marriage. That still doesn't make it right. In 1Thess 4:13 it states this:"For this is the will of God, [even] your sanctification, that ye should abstain from fornication:"

Sex is meant to be between a man and woman who are married and anything outside of that is sin and not the will of God.
If people are doing the opposite of God's will then it's demonic because the devil counterfeits the things of God.

Marriage between a man and woman is the best thing for society and as we have seen, Jesus Himself approves of men and women in marriage.

Colin -- February 5 at 5:25pm
Jack,

There is a lot in this message and as the one trying to fight these confining definitions it would take me a very long time to answer your reply with all I'd like to say, that's why it took me so long to respond. Instead of going through your message and identifying my problems with your views I'd like to just make a couple points and ask a few questions.

The most restricting ideas you have stem from the ideas you have about homosexuals in your immediate life. These people who have molested you and your family have committed sins besides homosexuality and I would say that it is these sins that you reject. I mean you wouldn't have been ok being molested by a female, or even being molested by a female you are married to, and so the molesting is the sin.

Aside from these experiences you draw heavily on the bible, and homosexuals in the bible as your reference for the modern lifestyle. It would be similar to me identifying modern taxpayers by the means I saw them in the bible.

Regardless you said at the end of your message that Jesus approves of men and women in marriage, but I ask you, did Jesus ever say that men and men shouldn't be married? Did he ever say that women should not be married to women?

The old testament is full of rules, many you quoted to me, and it is the belief of many modern Christians that Jesus died on the cross to save us from a life of rule-memorization. When Jesus gave himself up for us, he died so that we could live a life in god and in freedom. He was a figure that declared as long as love ruled, everything else was forgiven by god.

The bible says things like "shellfish are an abomination" and that you can't "wear clothes of many cloths" but I'm sure you do not follow these rules to the T.

I present you with a problem: Say you have an affinity for vanilla ice cream, but you live in a city where everyone assumes you enjoy chocolate. You are given chocolate ice cream whenever you walk into a store or drive down the street, every day people are trying to sell you chocolate but you know its not for you. One day instead of chocolate you are presented with Vanilla, and although you've never tasted Vanilla ice cream you know this is for you. Before you can put the ice cream in your mouth you are stopped by a friend. Your friend tells you that this is a test from god and that you aren't supposed to eat Vanilla because its bad... but they can't give you a very good reason for WHY its bad except that you're not supposed to. Your friend may enjoy eating chocolate with no such test, and they encourage you to "just try it... you may like it", but you know you would be sinning against yourself to even taste it. People are beginning to suspect you are different and they call you names, not because you eat Vanilla ice cream but because you don't eat chocolate, so you try it. You try to fit in and you can't, and still people make fun of you. Again you are presented with Vanilla ice cream, this time from a friend who tells you there is nothing wrong with Vanilla ice cream, and that you shouldn't be afraid to try something new if it's where your soul guides you. What do you do? Reject your friend or embrace the community that hates you for who you are and live your life suffering in silence?

Jack -- February 5 at 9:12pm
Colin, thank you very much for your reply. I made a mistake about 1Thess 4:13. It should of been 1Thess 4:3

Concerning the ideas that I have about homosexuals in my immediate life, anyone having sex with the same sex is having homosexual sex. Doesn't matter if it's rape, molestation, etc...

Concerning the Bible and homosexuals; The First Amendment has been around for 219 years, and I don't hear anybody saying we've got to get rid of it because it's so out of date.

Concerning what you said about Jesus and men and men and women and women getting married.
Why would God create man and woman then? He told them to be fruitful and to multiply. Jesus didn't have to say anything about men and men and women and women being married because He said that the man and woman are to be together.

Concerning the Old Testament rules, Christ died to save us from our sins and one of those sins is homosexuality. You mentioned that Jesus declared as long as love ruled, everything else was forgiven by god. If that's the case why did Jesus tell more than one person, "Go and SIN NO MORE?" God doesn't want us in sin because it keeps us away from Him.
Remember when I quoted 1Thess 4:3? My question to you is this; Do you want to be in the "Will of God"? If you want to be in the "Will of God" then you must abstain from fornication. If you fornicate then your not in "God's Will" and that keeps us from Him.

Concerning the Bible saying things like "shellfish are an abomination" and that you can't "wear clothes of many cloths",
those were for the Jewish nation. Christians don't live by Jewish laws. As you can tell, I have not quoted any verses from the law of Moses to you. I did quote verses prior to the law of Moses in Genesis and what Paul wrote to New Testament believers.

God tells us why we shouldn't be eating vanilla ice cream because it's deadly. We could get herpes on our mouths, fecal matter in our mouths, anal cancer, cryptosporidium, giardia lamblia, herpes simplex virus, human immunodeficiency virus, human papilloma virus, isospora belli, microsporidia, gonorrhea, viral hepatitis types B & C, syphilis, hemorrhoids anal fissures, anorectal trauma, etc...
When God tells us not to be doing something, it's not for us to hate Him for it, it's to keep us safe. If our soul guides us away from the things of God then that is the working of evil spirits talking to us in our mind making us think it's us thinking those things. They devil can manipulate our mind, will and emotions. It is the devil that wants us in homosexuality/same sex attractions so he can destroy us and to keep us from our destiny in God.

Thanks for the reply and I enjoy our conversations.
Thanks,
Jack

Colin -- February 5 at 11:59pm
Hi Jack,

First off I'd like to thank you. A lot of people in your position in this conversation would immediately shun from this topic. Frankly they are scared of it. I'm glad you are allowing me to challenge your views and I hope you take the challenge seriously, because I do. While I am a homosexual and while I do have regular sex with my boyfriend, I am also deeply spiritual. I have talked to Andy about our conversations and tried to explain your side of the argument. It is very hard to talk about these things because they just come naturally to me, and I know it is the same for you.

I'd like to talk about our culture for a moment. Things are very different then they were back in the days of early Christianity. In Jesus' time it was required of a responsible Jewish man to have a wife and bear children which I think gives a lot of credit to your arguments. I would like to challenge these views on a cultural as well as scientific front.

In our society today it is not completely necessary to procreate in order to further the Christian tradition because of the far reaches of the Christian faith. In the early days it was important because this faith was not popular and not far-reaching, but we live in a much different world today. For these reasons the procreation argument simply does not hold against my views for the rejection of homosexuality.

400 years ago we started a certain scientific revolution in which religion was challenged. In England the same people who made musical instruments and celebrated religious worship were also the same people pushing for the scientific revolution, the doctrine of the scientific method. The scientific method (testing hypotheses to gain a natural truth) began to rise which informed us of things like germs, the workings of the solar system, advanced mathematics etc that simply did not exist in the times of Jesus.

I can take validity in your argument about not doing certain things because God says not to because they would make us ill. The fact is that we know a lot more about science than they did, and God does not need to protect us from certain things because we have the ability to understand them. Back in the dark ages if someone was sick it was because they did something that was unclean and unhealthy, but the attitude was that they were overcome by a demon or demonic spirit. Now we have a name for these spirits, and they are the diseases you mentioned. Because we know how they are transmitted and can understand the way they grow, we can take measures to protect ourselves that were not possible back then. This is my case for homosexual sex.

In a couple posts previously you said that men and women were made for each other because their parts fit. This is true. What is also true is that in ways mens parts also fit men, and womens parts may be stimulated by women.

When a homosexual man has anal sex with another man, he inserts his penis until it pushes against the prostate gland, which is at the end of his anal canal. This gives pleasure. The anal canal at an average length is exactly the same average length as the penis.

For women, many of the parts of their organs that may be stimulated are on the surface, and those that are deeper inside the body may be manipulated by the tongue or by the fingers, but the simple friction of two vaginas is enough to cause sexual pleasure. In these ways the human body is flexible in its sexuality in a very biological sense.

To answer your question about the will of God: it would take a lot of pain out of the world if people abstained from sex until marriage, I definitely agree, but this is not the world we live in. But I grant you, what if there was a homosexual man who did not have sex, but was romantically involved with another man. They love each other purely, and while they have never had sex, they want to wed. If Eve WAS made for Adam, so these two mens spirits can be made for each other. These men are pure, and they do not intend to conduct any sex that is unholy - these men should be allowed to marry, shouldn't they?

Jack -- February 6 at 2:17pm
Colin, I wanted to thank you also for not shunning away from my views and thank you for allowing me to challenge your views in a respectable way. If more people on both sides could debate as we do, the world would be a better place.
I was wondering if I could ask when you first knew when you were homosexual. If you don't want to answer that is ok. Did you have a same sex attraction toward men before you did homosexual acts? Or did you just want to have sex with anybody (this is general question)? Did you have a father and mother? What was your childhood like?

I agree that is not necessary to procreate to further the Christian tradition. If I'm reading you correctly I didn't know that in the early days it was required to procreate to further the Christian religion.
I had thought that the 'fundamental function' of sex is procreation.

Concerning 'the fact is that we know a lot more about science than they did, and God does not need to protect us from certain things because we have the ability to understand them.'
If that is the case then why does the homosexual community have the highest rates of syphilis. That might not be you and your partners case but in overall homosexuality it is.

Concerning 'posts previously I said that men and women were made for each other because their parts fit.'
Anal intercourse is the sine qua non of sex for many gay men.
Yet 'human physiology' makes it clear that the body was not designed to accommodate this activity. The rectum is significantly different from the vagina with regard to suitability for penetration by a penis. The vagina has natural lubricants and is supported by a network of muscles. It is composed of a mucus membrane with a multi-layer stratified squamous epithelium that allows it to endure friction without damage and to resist the immunological actions caused by semen and sperm. In comparison, the anus is a delicate mechanism of small muscles that comprise an 'exit-only' passage. With repeated trauma, friction and stretching, the sphincter loses its tone and its ability to maintain a tight seal. Consequently, anal intercourse leads to leakage of fecal material that can easily become chronic. Condoms do break during sex.
The potential for injury is exacerbated by the fact that the intestine has only a single layer of cells separating it from highly vascular tissue, that is, blood. Therefore, any organisms that are introduced into the rectum have a much easier time establishing a foothold for infection than they would in a vagina. The single layer tissue cannot withstand the friction associated with penile penetration, resulting in traumas that expose both participants to blood, organisms in feces, and a mixing of bodily fluids.

I agree that it would take a lot of pain out of the world if people abstained from sex until marriage. Your right on the dot about that.
If a homosexual man didn't have homosexual sex then would he be homosexual?
David Blankenhorn, who is a life-long, pro-gay, liberal democrat who disagrees with the Bible’s prohibitions against homosexual behavior makes a powerful case against same sex marriage in his book, 'The Future of Marriage.'
He writes, “Across history and cultures . . . marriage’s single most fundamental idea is that every child needs a mother and a father. Changing marriage to accommodate same-sex couples would nullify this principle in culture and in law.”
The law is a great teacher, and same sex marriage will teach future generations that marriage is not about children but about coupling. When marriage becomes nothing more than coupling, fewer people will get married to have children.
People will still have children, of course, but many more of them out-of wedlock. That’s a disaster for everyone. Children will be hurt because illegitimate parents (there are no illegitimate children) often never form a family, and those that “shack up” break up at a rate two to three times that of married parents. Society will be hurt because illegitimacy starts a chain of negative effects that fall like dominoes—illegitimacy leads to poverty, crime, and higher welfare costs which lead to bigger government, higher taxes, and a slower economy.
Anthropologist Stanley Kurtz writes, “When we look at Nordland and Nord-Troendelag — the Vermont and Massachusetts of Norway — we are peering as far as we can into the future of marriage in a world where gay marriage is almost totally accepted. What we see is a place where marriage itself has almost totally disappeared.” He asserts that “Scandinavian gay marriage has driven home the message that marriage itself is outdated, and that virtually any family form, including out-of-wedlock parenthood, is acceptable.”
But it’s not just Norway. Blankenhorn reports this same trend in other countries. International surveys show that same-sex marriage and the erosion of traditional marriage tend to go together. Traditional marriage is weakest and illegitimacy strongest wherever same-sex marriage is legal.

I am very close to a few men. As a matter of fact I'm in love with one of them. He has fulfilled all of my dreams and desires. The best thing about it is that my wife doesn't mind it one bit. As a matter of fact my wife is in love with Him also and I approve it.
I love Him before her and she loves Him before me. This man is Jesus.

Thanks for your time in reading this and I look forward to your comments. Give my regards to Andy and I just want you guys to know that I don't hate you guys or homosexuals.

Colin -- February 7 at 1:57pm
Jack,

As a person trained in the areas of logic and philosophy you'll have to excuse me if parts of this message are more general than our previous correspondence. I think this will help.

First off I may have conveyed the wrong message when talking about procreation as furthering a Christian world-view. More specifically procreation was important to keep a Jewish world-view alive. In the time of Jesus Judaism was the underdog religion; the Romans were dominant and their empire grew to envelope the Jews, and so their religion was in peril. The teachings of the bible and the teachings of early Christianity were in danger. I think this is an important distinction.

In your last message you used the phrase "the potential for injury", and I'd like to talk about this for a moment. It is true that condoms break, that there is bacteria in the anal cavity and that anal sex is dangerous if not done properly. However, the potential for damage is rife in our existence, yet people still smoke, damaging the lungs and arteries. People still do extreme events like jumping out of planes and tattoo themselves, practices that can be lethal in their own ways. In our environment it is even dangerous to walk in our cities with the threats of violence and pollution, yet we still survive. It may be true that some contract disease through sex, but many more remain clean and healthy. In response to your claim that most cases of syphilis are among men who have sex with other men, this may be true but it would only affect men who have sex with other men with syphilis. There are men homo and heterosexual who sleep around with other men, these are the men most likely to transmit disease. The pool of gay men is smaller than the pool of straight men, and so the risk is higher, but this is no danger unless you are one of the men in the pool. I would argue that a large percentage of gay men are not in this pool, and so it is unfair to generalize a disease to a larger group in this way. Disease is not dependent on sexuality, and sexuality is not necessarily the conduit for disease.

I'd also like you to consider the fact that you do not have to have anal sex to be gay. Many men live under the condition that they will only engage in oral sex, and some don't even engage that far. There are some men who desire being the recipient of anal sex (they are usually referred to as "bottom"s) and some who desire anal sex, but do not want to be penetrated (they are usually referred to as "top"s). As well, lesbians do not engage in anal sex any more frequently than straight women, and so their sexuality is not "dirty" or any more endangered by disease; far less so, I would argue, since women are less likely to have multiple partners than men. In this way it is a much "safer" practice to be a lesbian than a straight woman.

I am not shy and would like to answer your questions about myself candidly. In truth I was gay before I knew what gay was. It was in my Catholic elementary school when I was ten years old that I was first called gay; I had to ask my mother what it meant. As she described the qualifications for being gay, I knew she was identifying me even though I was not sexually active, and was not sexually attracted to men. It was something that I felt, the knowing that I was different. After puberty I started becoming attracted to men. At the time I still imagined a future where I would marry a woman and produce children; Later I knew this was a dream I carried far too long that was proliferated by my love of children and my desire to have a child of my own. I still hope to be a father one day.

I knew some gay teenagers at my high school, and although I had never had any kind of sexual contact with another man, I was strong enough to come out to my friends. I had a girlfriend who I loved, but the sex wasn't there in any form. I did not have a desire to kiss her, and I touched her sexually once by accident (i hugged her from behind and felt her breast), this incident makes me laugh even now :)

I'd also like you to know I don't hate you or heterosexuals, nor do I hate Christians or Republicans, it is only the disinterest and misunderstandings that offend me.

I wonder, do you talk to your wife about our messages? I'd encourage you to, since it has been a rewarding process with Andy and myself.
* * * * *