is stroking with another guy bad??

<!--QuoteBegin-Tender@Jul 1 2004, 02:39 PM
I do not 'go by' what anyone tells me in my life, I 'go by' what *I** decide MYSELF if right[/quote]

Do you not see a contradiction in those two statements?

Well Tender, I do agree with several things you said. The board is open to anyone's viewpoint, not just the ones who agree. I have been in and around Christianity for most of my life and do consider myself to be a Christian, although I am one of those people who interprets the Bible in my own way, don't worry, I won't bore you all with my views on what and why! I have just personally found it impossible for me to accept it literally, although I realise most Christians do. From that standpoint, I can understand and appreciate your stance, even though it is not mine. I do think we all contribute to the greater good of the group.

I also agree that all forms of sex are sex, even tho my hero and pal Bill Clinton said otherwise!! (an attempt at levity there!)

And last, I respect you for making your own choices in your life, I only hope that you allow others this opportunity as well, and I believe you do.

My fear is, that in this forum there are a lot of "seekers" of information and liberal discussion that is much needed and nearly absent in our culture and society. Much of the reason for this is the religious right wing that does see things more in terms of "black and white". If one doesn't happen to fall into these pidgeonholes easily, then they/we are left with no where to go. This board has helped me tremenedously in the few short months I've been on here, and I would hate to think others might not get the support they need because of the appearance that it is not about open communication.

Lastly, MY VIEW is that "sin is sin". ALL sin and fall short of the glory of God. All of us. Jealosy is not less than adultery, which is not worse than lying, which is the same as greed. Not a single one of us is perfect, or anything close. We are all on a path to becomming more beatiful, well honed versions of ourselves and we will take many different paths to get there. I would hope that one who has told us she conceived her first child out of wedlock would not be so eager to cast stones at what she considers another's "sin". We are all sinners equally, as well as growers, lovers, friends to each other, children of God (who IS perfect and sees inside our souls). I had this conversation with my mother once when she was quoting scripture to me. I wanter HER opinion, I can read all by myself! I wanted to know what was in HER brilliant mind, as I was being deprived of it by having the Bible quoted strictly. My mother was the most intelligent, warm hearted person I ever met, but when she was newly "saved" she went through a phase where she seemed to lose the ability to dig inside herself to speak to me and gave a lot of canned "Christian approved" responses to my questions. I already knew what the moral majority would say, I needed the insights that would be uniquely hers. I guess I would like the same from you, Tender. If if is true that your personal opinions are exactly the same, then I may have just wasted my time typing, but I would guess that you do have thoughts that are just your own as well.

I love and appreciate all of you, thanks for opening up the topic.

LoveGirl: *OFF TOPIC* Bill Clinton was the best president we've had in a long time. There was a 3-4 trillion dollar deficit when he came into office and by the end of his terms it was a 6 trillion dollar surplus. During Bush's term it has gone to a 6 trillion deficit.
Yes, he made a marital mistake but that shouldn't have been dealt with by the american people, it should have been dealt with by his wife. It was a private matter between Bill and Hillary.

*Back on topic* I agree with some of what you said Tender, but not all of it. I believe that only the person can decide what is right for them, unless they are not mature people, and many people are not.

Tender, unless you can read first century Hellenistic Greek, you really don't know what it says, only what your English translation says. Translations of the Bible are certainly coloured by the point of view of the translator, even if unconsciously. In the Authorized Version of the New Testament, the word homosexual occurs twice. Guess what: there is no such word in the original Greek writings of Paul because Hellenistic Greek did not contain such a all-encompassing term. There are words for specific homosexual acts, but St. Paul never wrote any of those words in his epistles. So while you are free to interpret your preferred translation of the Scriptures according to how you see fit, your own view does not carry any more weight than that of any other lay person. (By the way, yes ... my New Testament Greek is pretty good. It is, in fact, better than my ecclestiastical Latin.)

joe22xxx: He didnt ask for only those with a particular opinion to respond lol.
i gave him my opinion he can take it for what he thinks.

i dont have to take part in something i feel is wrong to know it is wrong.
i feel getting drunk every weekend and shooting up with drugs is wrong, and I decided that without ever having done it.
just because the law says something is OK doesnt make it LEGAL for ME to do.
i feel abortion is killing an unborn baby, but the law says thats no big deal.
if every woman on the face of this earth had a female/female sexual 'experience', and said how wonderful and bonding it was for them, it would still be wrong for me and i understand it to be wrong period. Everyone is responsible for their own choices, i dont control that.

If this isnt a judgement group, then Im having a pretty hard time understanding why you are jumping down my throat?

to whoever said that i must be living in the Levitical realm, I do not believe the Bible is 'out of time'. Does that mean i follow all of the ceremonial laws? no, because Im not Jewish. Im a Christian. I understand the new testament to have made it very clear that sexual immorality is not morally acceptable. That includes homosexual behavior, as well as premarital sex, and yes to me JO, oral, fingering ect whatever you want to call it-- is all a form of sex. That in MY understanding was intended by God to be saved for marriage. Others disagree with that and interpret scripture to mean whatever they like. that is of no responsibility of mine.
now, no where here have i said that doing that is easy. or that it doesnt go against natural feelings. when im mad at my husband, i sometimes have the natural feeling or instinct to protect myself ie my pride, and perhaps id like to haul off and clobber him. but, i use good judgement and restrain myself from doing what i *feel* like doing, because i *know* that is wrong to do. Just because something feels ok, doesnt mean it is--I think thats where your 'using our minds' comment comes in.......

there are plenty of ways to bond, form a trust or relationship with someone without being involved sexually.

My seeing things with blinders on, is an opinion. I do not 'go by' what anyone tells me in my life, I 'go by' what *I* decide MYSELF if right. It's called what Madame Zora said 'being your own man'.
I understand full well that many things in life are not black and white. but, i will say that being involved sexually with someone of the same sex is pretty CLEAR> it is not exaclty straight activity, no? I suppose that is left open to interpretation of what constitutes 'straight'. To me its NOT. Gray areas i found out are areas of caution. Its gray for a reason. Because there is no clear line. everyone has their own gray area. Gray areas may give us the opportunity to show love to someone or help others, but it does not give me excuse to condone behavior I feel is morally wrong.
I dont believe that JO with anyone is a way to confirm their sexual orientation. As i said, I feel sorry for anyone who has to engage in it or many other things, in order to know WHO or WHERE they are in themselves. That seems like insecurity to me. I know my orientation without having to 'find it' or prove myself -to myself or anyone else. I fail to see how JO with another man 'thrusts' them into heterosexual orientation being its homosexual behavior? People tend to conform to whatever they are exposed to. Its called influence or pressure. The more a person is influenced to follow a particular behavior or teaching, the more likely they will be to do it. What you described here is the opposite.

As far as the original poster, I simply was telling him, that hey, even if EVERY poster on this board, said that was the best experience of their lives, doesnt mean its right for you. Nothing wrong with asking other peoples opinions on things, but ultimately one has to choose for himself what he will do with his gray area.

Tender [/b][/quote]
This is the really classic disagreement between some Christians,who have a very black and white view of morality, and others who don't really respect that view. Some Christian folks think that God ordains all things, including morality, in a very concise way, found in the Bible.
Then there are those of us who may agree with some Christian morality,but not all of it. I've learned the hard way that morality, especially Judeo-Christian sexual morality, can be very de-humanizing. It condemns natural human behavior,makes us feel shitty about our sexual desires and our bodies, and is generally fearful of anything that is intimate or sensual. To call our deepest desires and needs sinful...well, that's the biggest shame of all. Just my 2 cents.

This is the really classic disagreement between some Christians,who have a very black and white view of morality, and others who don't really respect that view. Some Christian folks think that God ordains all things, including morality, in a very concise way, found in the Bible.
Then there are those of us who may agree with some Christian morality,but not all of it. I've learned the hard way that morality, especially Judeo-Christian sexual morality, can be very de-humanizing. It condemns natural human behavior,makes us feel shitty about our sexual desires and our bodies, and is generally fearful of anything that is intimate or sensual. To call our deepest desires and needs sinful...well, that's the biggest shame of all. Just my 2 cents. [/quote]
Even more than Judeo-Christian morality, it's Victorian morality. We who live in the USA, England and Canada have been subjected to this Puritanical mindset that has screwed us up even more than the Bible-thumpers have. I come from an evangelical, fundamentalist (Baptist and Pentecostal) church background, so I can speak from experience. I do believe that the Bible has rules set out for a reason, HOWEVER, we have twisted and turned them for our own wants and desires to be made "ok" and for someone elses to be made "wrong." If something doesn't jive with what we understand, it's automatically, a sin. Well, the one thing that Jesus came to do was to show LOVE, which was a new concept compared to the God of the Old Testament, which was all about fear and wrath. Sort of what the likes of Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson and James Kennedy like to preach about. Sure, Jesus made his followers walk a fine line, bug, he did it with compassion. Remember the story about the woman at the well? Instead of being ugly to her, he chose to show mercy and forgave her sin. Mary Magdalene was one of his closest followers and we know about her past. These are people that in the modern evangelical church would be condemned because they are "sinners." Sin is sin is sin. Lying is no worse than greed and that's no worse than a sexual sin like adultery. In God's eyes it's all sin. Humans put ranking on sin--and the juicy ones get top ranking. IF it goes against our Puritanical morals, it's got to be a really bad sin. So jacking off with a buddy or having sex outside of marriage or, heaven forbid, homosexuality--because it's sex outside of marriage--those must really be bad. Those are nothing worse than me getting mad at the guy who cut me off changing lanes and me saying a bad word. IT's all bad. The Bible says that we've all sinned and fallen short of the glory of God. We all have to ask for forgiveness for our sins. In Liturgical churches, there is a confession of sins that is part of the service. In some non-Liturgical churches, they do the same thing. It's done for a reason....because we're all sinners and need to be cleansed. No matter what we do we're going to sin. That's just a part of being human. We try to do good, but we're not perfect. I've gotten way off track here, and didn't mean to start preaching, but my whole point is to say that I'm a Christian and I chose to see God and Jesus in a positive way, looking at the love and compassion rather than condemnation. I think that Tender is very closed minded and her type give Christians a bad name.

Maybe because I'm a foreigner, from the liberal Netherlands where religion is something privat, never used in lawmaking or public and most important not holding people back in there search in life. I never can understand that in Anglican countries esspecially the US, people can feel so strong and unworldy against other people all in the holy name of calling them self good Christians ?

Why is it that we in the Netherlands think that in the US religion esspecially strong Christians movements are refine highly conservative narrowminded indoctrinated views of people wanted to display that they are the only one who have the truth in there hands?

I don't understand Tender, why do you even want to be a poster on this filthy, sexual immoral LPSG site? I hope not to make me a "believer" because the more I read your Victorian Christians morality, the more I'm a comfortable liberal atheist.

Save the world and start with yourself, lightup !!

The last time I tried it, it wasn't bad at all. Oh, I'm sorry, I'm thinking of the wrong grading standard.

This is why, as a Christian, I get so riled up, by my fellow evangelicals. They can be so stupid sometimes. In their small minded thinking, trying to be morally righteous, they turn off those tho whom they are trying to preach, thus negating their whole witness. If my fellow believers would stop and THINK before they opened their mouths and see that being negative doesn't win over converts, they'd be able to gather more into the flock. I'm not here to proseletyze, mind you, but I'm just stating the fact that Lacsap is an Atheist and how Tender acted just further turned him against Christianity. For God did not send His Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through Him. (John 3: 17) Seems to me that speaks against condemnation right there.

What started as an innocent question about two dudes jacking off together has brought about some interesting dialogue, however. I still say that two guys jacking together can be an intense bonding experience. Males need to have intimate friendships--why have there been such interest in things like Promise Keepers and men's retreats and men's golf weekends and stuff like that. It doesn't have to be Christian, it can be a group of college friends getting together for a "boys" weekend to re-establish their friendships. Men need their time together as much as women do, but we've been taught that it's not right for us to express our feelings, that's why we need alcohol to loosen us up. Girls only need a mall and some charge cards. LOL Anyway, I still maintain that it's cool for a couple of buds to get close to each other and if it involves getting off together, it's cool and it's not immoral. If you and your friend are cool with it, go with the flow.

Yeah, the closest the Bible comes to condemning homosexuality is in Leviticus, and that's only male and even then the wording implies penetration.

BRMSTN69: politics are bad enough but, relegion I'm not even going there!!!!

but I will say that there are so many ideals as to what a MAN should be that the role has become very diffacult to live up to

i had a j/o buddy a few years back. no touching just jerkin and watching porn. it was such a orgasm to j/o without inhibitions. those were the days

Jonb and Prepstud know my position on relgion from the earlier incarnation from this board (and elsewhere) and I take the view as expressed by Lacsap1 in that I am an athiest and happen to believe that religion is the biggest conspiracy ever perpetuated on this world. However, I also respect the fact that people are free to believe whatever the hell it is they want to believe except when they vocalise those beliefs which can do harm to anyone else. Which is why I have made a few strongly-worded posts against Tender. As far as I am concerned she falls into the Right-Wing Christian camp who spout parts of the Bible but ignore other aspects of it because they believe it gives them the moral high ground. But, Jon and Prep are also religious people and yet they have never given me the slightest cause to have crossed words with them. If people choose to believe and it makes their lives happier then all well and good and I am happy for them. The right-wing "Christian" Conservatives can all go and fuck themselves. They scream from their pulpits (or their LPSG posts) that homosexuality is wrong because it says so in the Bible . Well actually the Bible also says:

that you can sell your eldest daughter into slavery as long as it's in a neighbouring country

that you can take an unruly child to the city gates and stone him to death

that you can be punished by death for eating shellfish

you can be stoned to death for touching the skin of a dead pig

etc etc etc; there are many more anachronistic examples from that particular book.

No sane person would kill another because lobster was eaten, so sane person would kill their child because it had been naughty. None of the right-wing "Christian" bigots can answer me when I point out that they tirade against homosexuality but don't stone their own children to death when they are unruly; that they pick and chose what to believe from the Bible because it suits their own fascist, Victorian, puritanical view-point.

As an athiest, I believe I live a more Christian life than so-called Christians simply because I believe we are here to learn and help each other not to denigrate or harm others. So-called Christians really do damage when they become law-makers and impose their fascist views on everyone.

As DMW has pointed out, there are problems with the translation from Hebrew to Greek to English. We've grown up hearing all sorts of stories from the Bible and we are led to believe that they mean this or that. The Good Samaritan: we are led to believe that this means we must help our fellow human beings but in fact the story was Jesus' attempt at political agit-prop and was an attack against the money-changers who ran the temples. We are led to believe that "there was no room at the inn, so Jesus was born in a stable". Well that's partly true but a mis-translation between Hebrew and Greek has led us to believe that the "inn" was some kind of Bethlehem Hilton which was full (well, it was Christmas!! (sorry, just a joke)) but the original Hebrew word referred to the upper part of dwellings were people lived as opposed to the ground floor where the animals were kept. So Jesus was simply born in a normal dwelling but on the ground floor. It's all a matter of interpretion and mis-translation and the politcal agendas of those doing both.

Sorry to ramble on and people such as DMW and Jonb who are far cleverer than I will perhaps clarify some of the things I have mentioned.

So in my opinion Christians can believe whatever they want to but the moment their beliefs cause harm to others, they cross the line and deserve to be slapped down.

Here endeth the lesson.

In addition, (while we're on the topic of mistranslation) in the story of Adam and Eve, it says in the translated version that God made Eve to be a "helper" or "helpmate" to Adam, inferring subordination. In the original Greek, the word meant more closely "the one who would lead him back to God" which is more a spiritual guide than sidekick! This one simple mistranslation, which was no accident, has led men throughout the years to treat women as secondary, when that was not the intention in the original text.

The Bible is NOT a cohesive book, but rather a collection of literary works collected and voted on by a council!! Everyone knows this, yet people try to say it's the inspired writing of God, which is pure bullshit. Some things were included, some excluded, but MEN decided what was what, AND WE ALL KNOW IT!! So I have a very difficult time just accepting every word wholesale knowing that very vital works were not included. Knowing that intrigual parts were misquoted, knowing that the intentions of man are prevalent in the messages, not just the words of God. I think there is a wealth of knowledge there and it serves well as a starting place, but not an end in one's search for the truth. As TSB so aptly pointed out, the Bible in it's infintie wisdom condones slavery, giving away of virginal daughters to a horny throng (oh yes!) and positioning of women as secondary citizens in society. Since I strongly disagree with these things, I also reject the idea of homosexuality being wrong. Actually I disagree with quite a lot. I have that option because I have researched it more fully than some. To accept some but not the parts that seem icky is what almost all (excuse this) psycho-Christians do. Then they have the audacity to condemn others for doing the same thing, making their own discernments. Then there's the topic of Apocolyptic writing, which was an authorial style around at that time where exaggeration and simile was used heavily to make points more dramatically. It was a commonly used writing style and probably accounts for explaining much of the book of Revelation. Then there's the issue of John, there are at least three distinctly different authors who are attributed to "John", it was as common a name then as now! sheesh, rant done.

One of the points that Madame Zora very subtly makes, that my fellow Christians almost TOTALLY miss, is that God gave us brains, and that we are SUPPOSED to use them. If we were supposed to blindly follow the rhetoric thrown at us, we wouldn't need them. We are supposed to think for ourselves. Why else would the books have been written in the styles that they are? We are supposed to take parables and figure out the truth. The kernels of truth are hidden in there, but we need to THINK. What's on the surface is not always what's the real meaning, there's most always a hidden deeper meaning that we are supposed to find. To only take things at face value is very infantile. It's like going to the Louvre and saying, "hey, yeah, it's a nice museum." It is just easy to not have to think for ourselves. I admit that growing up with this mindset, I was taught, "this is the way it is, don't question it....." However, as I got older, my eyes have been opened to a lot of things. I have tried things for myself. I have seen things. I have also had some wonderful ministers teach me that life isn't so black and white. It's made me realize that I can't be so quick to make judgements and that I needed to think for myself, not to always rely on the rhetoric of others. All I know is that it's made me a better person for it, because I have been able to relate to more people because of it. Jesus was all about having relationships with people that religious society had shunned. Why? So he could show them the love of God. Love--not hatred.