Do You Still Believe There Is A God..

[duke37]

Bravo doc!

 

I'm not suprised to see a fair amount of nonbelievers on this board. I think (but have no facts to back it up) that this sites demographic skews to the wealthier and college educated. So it would not be suprising if the average message center poster mirrored the fairly agnostic/atheistic percentages of college educated higher income people in this country.

 

But do gays in America mirror the broader general population in our spiritual beliefs? My gut say we probably do reflect the same amount of belief and religiousity as the general populace.

 

For me I never left my religion. It turned out that I never belonged in the church in which I was raised. But I never left my faith. So now I am trying like others to find a community of faithful that believes at least some of what I believe. I'm going to a Metropolitan Community Church this weekend. Does anyone have experience with this group/faith?

I'll know if I'm in the right place by the people I meet.

 

So does anyone besides me pray? Jeff

 

"Love is the only thing that makes things one without destroying them."

Pierre Teilhard de Chardin

[Guest LG320126]

>So does anyone besides me pray? Jeff<

 

Every day Jeff - and it sure helps when it looks like nothing in your life is right - you will find an answer. :-)

[Traveller]

Phage,

 

Your words are always such pearls of great price. By what doctrines and covenants were you raised?

 

Later.

 

PS. Watch out for those salamander letters.

[Guest Joey Ciccone]

>I do believe there is still a god, higher power, or supreme being. I just haven't been able to find a religious organization that is liberal enough to allow me to define "god" within my own set of beliefs and parameters.<

 

I'm not sure who, but someone once said; "God gave us the truth. Satan tried to organize it and called it Religion."

[phage]

Okay buddy, you know way, way too much about “The Faith.” If I didn’t know better I’d swear there was some missionary in your life other than the missionary position.

 

Regards to Ali. I hope you told him about this site so he can start posting his travel schedule.

[Godiva]

Doc..your last sentence said it all..

 

But it is still so hard to have Blind Faith these days..

 

G

[BuckyXTC]

Yes, I believe in God, but not in the traditional way that many have described here. I see God as a creative, but not coercive force in history. And even though I am a part of a particular religious tradition, I'm hardly in accord with all of its tenets. Organized religion as we know it is pretty much a human convention, and naturally flawed and inadequate if you think religion should provide all the answers to life. I'm pretty comfortable living with mystery. I don't need to know or understand everything, because I can't anyway, anymore than anyone else can. I suppose the definition of religion I'm most comfortable with was posited by the great philosopher Alfred North Whitehead (a colleague and collaborator with another great mind, Bertrand Russell, who was an atheist in writing Principia Mathematica).

Whitehead defined religion as "what man does with his solitariness". Not much I can quibble with in that.

 

The difficulty I have with much religion today is due to the certitude and dogmatism about "possessing" the truth. I'm not sure "truth" is something one can own or possess. A prior contributor to this thread referred to the process of religious belief, and that's pretty much where I find myself......with God at the heart of a grand process which is largely beyond our ability to understand or comprehend. And I think we encounter God, or the divine, or whatever name you choose to use, through special moments in human interaction.....moments of caring, compassion, sharing. That may not be enough for some, and too much for others, but that's how it is for me.

 

BuckyXTC

[OneFinger]

>I'm not sure who, but someone once said; "God gave us the truth. Satan tried to organize it and called it Religion."

 

That is a quote worth remembering! That's exactly how I feel.

[OneFinger]

>I'm going to a Metropolitan Community Church this weekend. Does anyone have experience with this group/faith?

 

I've had both good and bad experiences with Metropolitan Community Church (MCC). I credit that organization for helping me come to grips with my homosexuality and realizing that gays can be spiritual. However, I've also found that my satisfaction with the organization differs from congregation to congregation. Some are really great and others are very lacking.

 

Fifteen years after coming out to my parents, they finally agreed to go MCC with me. Unfortunately, the sermon that day included a very graphic example of having a religious experience while giving someone a blowjob in a public restroom. This was not a very positive experience for them. That 15 minute sermon almost ruined a relationship that I had struggled 15 years to try and rebuild with my parents. :'(

[Godiva]

The variations here with religious beliefs is remarkable..Can any one here see an underlying connection besides mio?

 

While I have you here..most religions have their own version of the Allmighty..But what about his son Jesus. I always thought (God forgive me) that Jesus was just an extrordinary human who was in the right place at the right time. And that over time the retelling of his story and the exaggeration of his exploits has mythisised(sp) him. We have done that to many more recent historical figures..ie The early Presidents of the U.S., Entertainers, Sports Figures etc..

 

Could Jesus merely have been just a very talented human being? And we placed all of our blind faith on a mere mortal??

 

 

G

[Traveller]

>Okay buddy, you know way, way too much about “The Faith.”

>If I didn’t know better I’d swear there was some missionary

>in your life other than the missionary position.

 

Dude,

 

Remember, I'm an aggressive controlling bottom, on top man, on top. Either that or face shoved in the pillow or against the wall. Missionary position is for ladies.

 

Later.

 

PS. When you look out the window, do you ever see popcorn popping on the apricot tree?

[Guest RydeMyButt]

>>Could Jesus merely have been just a very talented human

>being? And we placed all of our blind faith on a mere

>mortal??

 

Jesus was mortal...and that was the point of his coming. "And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us..." John 1:14

 

God BECAME man - he didn't simply adopt human form, but otherwise remain God; by becoming man, with an understanding and experience of everything that it means to be human, Jesus then sacrificed himself, becoming the last great "blood sacrifice" for the world.

 

We know from the Gospels that Jesus became angry at times; we know that he wept, and that he laughed. What no one has determined (and many people are too closed minded to attempt to consider) is more "human" questions such as, "Was Jesus a virgin? Did he ever masturbate? Did he ever do any of the other countless small things which we as human beings do, because we lack the perfection of God?"

 

I think the answer is more likely than not - because that was the point of his becoming one of us. That God, loving his creation, surrendered his omnipotentce to assume human form and human frailty, and in so doing, sacrifice that humanity on the cross as the last sacrifical offering his creation would need.

 

Grace, and salvation through Christ on the cross, is a gift freely given to all, whether they believe or not. There is no "bargain"; there is no "if you do this, then I'll do that". Part of the man's nature is to doubt, to disbelieve, to reject. It is because of this that Grace is so freely given - it is our right as creatures of God, and not something which we have to "earn".

 

I firmly believe that each person, whether in life or after death, will be shown the truth, and given the opportunity to embrace the truth of the Risen Christ. Those whose faith brings them to that understand in life are blessed by God in this life (and will probably get an ocean-view condo in heaven...); but everyone, including Hitler and OBL, is a recipient of Grace, whether they believe it or not, and whether we think they deserve it or not (not that any of us deserves it).

 

Cheers,

[Bilbo]

I have been saving this thread for a quieter time, and have still not read through it yet, so it's a bit unfair of me to jump in like this, but something exciting, in a way, happened at church this morning (where I distrubted communion - yes, I still believe) and while I wanted to share it with y'all, I wasn't sure that I wanted it to become a thread all of its own. So, yes, this could be looked at as blatant hijacking, but I've never been too good at "subtle."

 

As part of the sermon this morning, our pastor (at RMCC, Houston) pointed out that although Rahab is talked about and praised several times in both testaments, she is never criticized for having been a prostitute.

 

Also got me to thinking, is Mary Magadalene ever criticized as having been a prostitute, or is it not for having been an adulterer?

[Guest Mark]

So true! The whole concept is ridiculous to me.

[Guest RydeMyButt]

>Also got me to thinking, is Mary Magadalene ever criticized

>as having been a prostitute, or is it not for having been an

>adulterer?

 

Mary Magdalene was neither...she was a widow who, presumably wealthy enough to support herself, travelled at times with Christ and the 12. Her close ties with Jesus were further demonstrated by the fact that she was the first person to whom the Risen Christ appeared.

 

She was definitely not a prostitute...people often confuse Mary Magdalene with the woman who was to be stoned for adultery, of whom Christ said "Let ye who are without sin cast the first stone".

 

Cheers...

[Godiva]

I don't have my Bible near me..but if anyone knows. Where is the passage in the bible that the "Ignorants" use to justify why they think God doesn't like Homosexuals? They also used it when Aids became an epidemic(sp?)

 

 

G

[phage]

Godiva,

 

It’s a scary, scary place, but get it right from the horse’s (ass) mouth at:

 

http://www.godhatesfags.com/

 

Phage

[Bilbo]

Most of the verses they site can be argued to mean something else. There is Leviticus, but that list lists a lot of other things that we don't pay any attention to anymore, so why should that one be singled out to heed. There is the story of Sodom and Gemorrah, but their sin was actually inhospitability (a deathly thing in a desert) or rape, homosexual or not, which we mostly agree is not a sex crime but a violent crime. There is Paul's Epistle to the Romans, which is very short and if you read the whole thing, you'll see where he also says that just because something is a sin for person A to do, it isn't necessarily a sin for person B to do, but it would be a sin for B to tempt A into doing it. Many fundamentalists don't realize that Jesus is never quoted directly as saying anything one way or another about homosexuality, and if it was important to Him, I'm sure He would have. And somewhere there is another verse but on examination of the original language, one finds that they aren't talking about homosexuals nor about male whores but about male temple whores, which if anyone has them anymore, I haven't heard anything about it.

 

And, in a related matter, the sin of Onan, thought by many to be simple masturbation, isn't. It's about masterbating and spilling your seed on the ground whilst between the legs of a woman who had a legitimate tribal cause to expect you to take her for one of your wives. For what book that's in, or for anything else for that matter, check your copy of the Bible. Many of them have what is called a concordense, which is basically just an index.

[duke37]

Thanks Phage,

 

I thought the worst parts of my family had the anti-gay bigot thing down, but they are pikers compared to these lunatics. How nice of them to pick and choose what Bible verses they want to promote. Why not weed through the Bible and prove the Earth is flat? No need to pay any attention to the parts of the Bible that absolutely condemn what they stand for.

 

So why the love affair with the word "faggot". Have they never heard of queer, homo or fudgepacker? Great website guys, nice to know there is a one stop shopping website for hate and evil. Jeff

[Guest regulation]

Interesting thread.

 

I don't see what belief in God has to do with the events of 9/11, at least for those who follow one of the Christian traditions. Christians believe that God gave men free will and that it is up to each individual to make moral choices. The events of 9/11 reflect the moral choices made by the people involved. The evangelical clergymen who suggested that God "failed to protect" our country from terrorist attacks are departing from mainstream Christian tradition, which teaches that God's rewards and punishments come in the next life rather than in this life.

 

I don't think there's much need to rehash the discussions of Christianity and homosexuality that have been held on this board in the past, interesting though they were. I will just direct the poster who asked about Christ's view of homosexuality to the Sermon on the Mount in Matthew. There, Christ explained that the purpose of his ministry was to uphold Scriptural law, under which homosexual acts are clearly prohibited.

[Guest TruthTeller]

>I will

>just direct the poster who asked about Christ's view of

>homosexuality to the Sermon on the Mount in Matthew. There,

>Christ explained that the purpose of his ministry was to

>uphold Scriptural law, under which homosexual acts are

>clearly prohibited.

 

If all Christ were doing were "upholding Scriptural law", there would have been no need for him to promulgate new law, which he made repeatedly clear he was doing. He made equally clear that in doing so, the veil of the old law would wash away, and apply no more.

 

Not a single word of the new law, as spoken by Christ, had anything even arguably to do with homosexuality. It wasn't until Paul spewed his neuroses at the world -- and the Church then made Paul's sickness part of the canon -- was homosexuality mentioned at all (and even then, its references are questionable).

 

Given the prevelance of homosexuality at that time in Rome, and prior to that in Greece, the unambiguous absence of any reference to it by Christ in the "new law" is obviously significant to everyone other than those who want to find condemnation of homosexuality for their own personal reasons.

[BewareofNick]

This little gem came from an episode of the West Wing in which Martin Sheen's character, the President, skewers a character based on Laura Schlessinger:

 

Bartlet: Good. I like your show. I like how you call homosexuality an abomination.

 

Jacobs: I don't say homosexuality is an abomination, Mr. President, the Bible does.

 

Bartlet: Yes, it does. Leviticus.

 

Jacobs: 18:22.

 

Bartlet: Chapter and verse. I wanted to ask you a couple of questions while I had you here. I'm interested in selling my youngest daughter into slavery as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. She's a Georgetown sophomore, speaks fluent Italian, always cleared the table when it was her turn. What would a good price for her be? While thinking about that, can I ask another? My chief of staff, Leo McGarry, insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2 clearly says he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself, or is it okay to call the police? Here's one that's really important because we've got a lot of sports fans in this town. Touching the skin of a dead pig makes one unclean. Leviticus 11:7. If they promise to wear gloves, can the Washington Redskins still play football? Can Notre Dame? Can West Point? Does the whole town really have to be together to stone my brother John for planting different crops side-by-side? Can I burn my mother in a small family gathering for wearing garments made from two different threads? Think about those questions, would you? One last thing, while you may be mistaking this for your monthly meeting of the Ignorant Tight-Ass Club, in this building, when the President stands, nobody sits.

[Guest WetDream]

RE: Limerick Alert

 

"Not a single word of the new law, as spoken by Christ, had anything even arguably to do with homosexuality. It wasn't until Paul spewed his neuroses at the world -- and the Church then made Paul's sickness part of the canon -- was homosexuality mentioned at all (and even then, its references are questionable)."

 

And old archeologist, Throstle,

Discovered a wonderful fossil.

He could tell from the bend

And the knot at its end

'Twas the penis of Paul the Apostle.

 

Thaank you, TT, for providing the excuse to quote this old favorite.

[Guest albinorat]

Now let's see what a poor argument for God this turd is:

 

>

>If all Christ<

 

The name was Jesus. "Christ" is a title, Greek that approximates the Hebrew "Messiah" which means "one annointed" as kings were. It is not a last name, like Teller (Truth Teller). So one down, you're an idiot.

 

> were doing were "upholding Scriptural law",

>there would have been no need for him to promulgate new law,

>which he made repeatedly clear he was doing.<

 

Ver you zere, Cholly?

 

In other words you've digested all eight billion words written on this subject and absorbed it all into your dustbuster, I mean brain.

No one knows what Jesus said. So what he did and didn't make clear is a matter of endless debate.

 

However, those of us who can read (I know some escorts who could teach you) can trace the fiction that Jesus "overturned the Law". In the earliest writings about him, those of Saul from Tarsus known to cretins like you only as Saint Paul, we can see that followers of the risen spirit he called Christ, meaning a spiritual being of kingly power, in his opinion, could avoid circumcision and dietary restrictions. Jesus became Christ when he rose from the tomb; up until then he was an ordinary mortal. Of course followers still had to abide the Law of Moses which Christ came to implement. I realize you can't read English let alone Greek but Paul/Saul calls himself "of the Hewbrews" which means he was a life-long follower of the Law.

 

Problem: James the brother of Jesus and Cephis, who you, not reading English, Greek or Aramaic know only as Saint Peter took strong objection to this. They reverenced Jesus but worshipped proudly in the Temple as devout Jews. They insisted Paul was wrong. He called them "the party of circumcision" and suggested they castrate themselves -- not a bad idea for you, tittorture, I mean truthteller.

Since Paul/Saul was writing in the 40's CE (that used to be BC, trog tonguer, I mean truth teller), about a decade after it is thought the Crucifixion occured, his notions though different in some respects from those who actually knew Jesus carry more weight than the Gospels which came much later and which he influenced.

 

Since Paul/Saul was converted in Damascus not Jerusalem and waited 16 years to meet James the brother of Jesus, his writing may reflect an early split in the Jesus movement between those who had a more mystical understanding of his message and those who saw it in continuity with a very basic hill country Judeism.

 

Now Paul/Saul who may have been an epileptic psychopath with homosexual tendencies tells us often he never knew Jesus "after the flesh". However James, Jesus' bro, and Cephis, your Saint Pete, did indeed know Jesus, presuming there was one to know. If they were shocked by Paul/Saul's loose treatment of the Law and belief in a physical resurrection (evidently a matter of some controversy), one can only imagine Jesus' reaction.

 

In fact, while independant attestations to the existence of Jesus don't exist, two Gallileeans very similar to him are known to have existed. One, Honi the Circle Drawer, and the other, Hanina ben dosa, preached many of the same things attributed to Jesus, worked wonders and did cures. They were utterly and rigidly devout Jews who insisted on the Law as utterly binding (but Honi, a great hero of the time, did, like Jesus, suggest the Sabbath could be breached for the work of healing). There is nothing whatever to suggest Jesus was different. Oh, there is one thing, tush troller, I mean truth teller. They married and insisted all men must. As far as we know Jesus didn't marry. Maybe he was a faggot. Could it be he worked as an escort? Then you and your mama Pickwick could think he was an idiot.

 

But we know nothing of Jesus' private life. There are those who wonder if the wedding of Cana were in fact his wedding. For indeed it was unheard of for holy men not to marry. His failure when he returned to preach in Nazareth attested in the first (earliest gospel) with his family plotting to put him in a madhouse and the town rising up may suggest he had abandoned his family.

 

The gospels were written in Greek (Jesus and his followers spoke Aramaic). The "synoptic" gospels (why don't you look the meaning of that up, turd taster, I mean Truth Teller) were written by unknown people probably 40-70 years after the Crucifixion. The names given them were made up in the second century CE (see above) by organized Christians who realized they had to have names. There is no evidence for "Mark", or "Matthew". Luke may have been an associate of Paul/Saul's who attached the frequently incoherent Acts of the Apostles to his gospel. However, what exactly these people wrote can be argued endlessly. For while fairly early copies have been found of a certain amount of the material, no complete, really early copies exist.

 

Now I realize English is hard for you, Trash Trawler, I mean Truth Teller, so Greek would be impossible. However if you read the three synoptics in Greek you will see sudden shifts in style and vocabulary which suggests "over-writing" almost from the first. That is as Christianity became an established religion, anti-Jewish, rigid dogmas were put in place and the gospels were made to conform.

 

However the most interesting gospel is "Mark's", generally thought to be the first written (though again in the 70's CE [see above]). Though like the other synoptics, "Mark" is often wrong about Jewish customs, geography, and his Passion Narrative is impossible (quite a lot is known about Sanhedrin trials and the versions in the three synoptics are all made up), he seems to capture the Galileean, devoutly Jewish Jesus with a degree of immediacy. Curiously, though, the original author did not have a resurrection story. His gospel ends with three Women (and I know how much you hate that, Tampax Taster, I mean Truth Teller) discovering the tomb is empty and fleeing in terror. If you read Greek you would see that the resurection story is then tacked on in an entirely different style, with different vocabulary. Since "Mark" is arguably the first written, that suggests that most of the first followers of Jesus did not believe he rose physically from the dead.

 

The second and third gospels (called "Matthew" and "Luke") take over a great deal from "Mark", re-writing, re-positioning his stories and extending them. They contradict him and each other. But in all these Gospels there is a very slight shift from viewing Jesus as an observant Jew, a prophet in a well established tradition to seeing him as a manifestation of divinity while still retaining his full humanness. In none of these is Jesus viewed as God, or equal to God, or powerful as God. In none of them is it clear that Jesus "overturned" the Law, or proposed himself to be worshipped.

 

The Fourth Gospel, attributed to someone named John, but probably the work of a number of writers and quite late (perhaps written as long as 90 years after Jesus' death) claims Jesus was God. And therefore broke his covenant with Jews in favor of those who believe in him. It is a shocking and radical piece of writing, sublime in its use of language in Greek. But it has the least to do with history. The writers were not concerned with a human Jesus, but with proving him God.

 

What Jesus would have made of any of this, testicle trapper, I mean Truth Teller will never be known. But if he indeed were a Jew preaching a quasi Chasidic return to the Law (very likely) he would have been horrified.

 

>

>Not a single word of the new law, as spoken by Christ, had

>anything even arguably to do with homosexuality. It wasn't

>until Paul spewed his neuroses at the world -- and the

>Church then made Paul's sickness part of the canon -- was

>homosexuality mentioned at all (and even then, its

>references are questionable).

>

This is too complex for your brain, Troll Trusser and everything you say is bullshit. Though where they came up with the words given to Jesus is a matter of endless debate, the gospels suggest a strict supporter of marriage and a hater of divorce. It follows that Jesus would have viewed your life style with disapproval if not loathing. It is also true that no one before 1900 would have conceived of "gayness". The word homosexual was not invented until the 1860's; it was not in common use 'til 1900. The word "gay" to denote 'inversion" was not really common until the 1960's though it was used in some circles before then. There have been same sexers through history, but seeing sex as defining identity is very much a view of the mid-20th century.

 

>Given the prevelance of homosexuality at that time in Rome,

>and prior to that in Greece<

 

The Attic states seem to have allowed boy love among the well to do. But you might read (if you can read ) the prosecution of Timarkhos in Athens in 346 BCE (used to be BC) for same sex activities and sneak at look at some Plato.

 

However everyone married. Marriages were arranged without the consent of bride or groom (who often met for the first time their marriage night). To fail to marry and father sons was a disgrace. Fathers could kill children who refused to marry. To be cast out was to become a slave or starve.

 

"Homosexuality" as we understand it did not exist. However, a man's taking his pleasure with a boy was not typically condemned so long as the boy was a slave, worked in a brothal or didn't matter socially. Of course the man couldn't get fucked, to be known to get fucked was a terrible disgrace and indeed was aginst the law. In Rome laws were passed to discourage same sex (look up the lex taliensis if you know how to research).

 

> the unambiguous absence of any

>reference to it by Christ in the "new law" is obviously

>significant to everyone other than those who want to find

>condemnation of homosexuality for their own personal

>reasons.<

 

An idiotic statement. Every thing uttered by "Jesus" (and much of it is taken word for word from what we call The Old Testament) is ambiguous.

 

The question in this thread was God. What has Jesus to do with God? The concept of an all powerful creator diety preceeds Jesus and continues to be held by those who do not accept or believe in Jesus.

[Guest TruthTeller]

>However, those of us who can read (I know some escorts who

>could teach you) can trace the fiction that Jesus

>"overturned the Law".

 

I think Scripture is a more authoritaive source for Christ's teachings than you on whether he overturned the Law of Moses. For starters:

 

2 Corinthians 3:13-14:

 

"And not as Moses, which put a veil over his face, that the children of Israel could not steadfastly look to the end of that which is abolished. (14) But their minds were blinded: for until this day remaineth the same veil untaken away in the reading of the old testament; which veil is done away in Christ."

 

The old testament is a "veil" put over the face by Moses -- an "old testament" which "is done away in Christ."

 

What were you saying about the "fiction" of the law being overturned?

 

In addition to the passages in which Jeses explicitly proclaims the Law of Moses to be washed away, here's what the Gospels say about the "fiction" that the old Law was overturned:

 

Mark 14:24: "And he said unto them, This is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many."

 

John 8:5-7: Jesus rejecting dictate of law of Moses that adulterer be stoned and instead commanding that she be freed.

 

Matthew 15:19-20: "For out of the heart proceed evil thoughts, murders, adulterers, fornications, thefts, false witness, blaspehmies: (20) These are the things which defile a man: but to each with unwashen hands defileth not a man ."

 

Matthew 15:11 - "Not that which goeth into the mouth defileth a man; but that which cometh out of the mouth, this defileth a man."

 

Luke 13:14-15: rebuking synagogue leader who rebuked Jesus for healing on the sabbath day

 

They were

>utterly and rigidly devout Jews who insisted on the Law as

>utterly binding (but Honi, a great hero of the time, did,

>like Jesus, suggest the Sabbath could be breached for the

>work of healing). There is nothing whatever to suggest Jesus

>was different.

 

He demeaned dietary laws, worked on the sabbath, contradicted Levitical punishments, and proclaimed the old law to be washed away; that doesn't exactly sound like rigid adherence to the Law of Moses.

 

Oh, there is one thing, tush troller, I mean

>truth teller. They married and insisted all men must. As far

>as we know Jesus didn't marry. Maybe he was a faggot. Could

>it be he worked as an escort? Then you and your mama

>Pickwick could think he was an idiot.

 

Are you expecting 10-year old insults of Jesus to upset me or something? Gee, you called Jesus a faggot - what a rebel you are.

 

Though where they came up

>with the words given to Jesus is a matter of endless debate,

>the gospels suggest a strict supporter of marriage and a

>hater of divorce. It follows that Jesus would have viewed

>your life style with disapproval if not loathing.

 

The fact that you have to struggle to imply a prohibition on homosexuality is compelling proof of its absence in anything Jesus said. Given - as you admit - that homosexuality was pervasive, not just then but previously, the absence of any such prohibition is rather compelling. Jesus either did or he did not express prohibitions on homosexuality. As your own post makes clear, he did not. If you disagree, please cite where he did so.

 

>The Attic states seem to have allowed boy love among the

>well to do. But you might read (if you can read ) the

>prosecution of Timarkhos in Athens in 346 BCE (used to be

>BC) for same sex activities and sneak at look at some Plato. . . . In Rome laws were passed to discourage same sex (look up the lex

>taliensis if you know how to research).

 

Homosexuality was expressly allowed in some places and expressly prohibited in others. Laws were enacted to ban it precisely because of its prevelance. All of that proves how pervasive it is, and yet Christ said nothing to condemn it.