DANGEROUS "Holy Roller" mentality

I don't like this implication, because it implies homosexuality is a sin or something which is otherwise accepted as worthy of being stoned for. By saying something like this the person is acknowledging homosexuality is somehow wrong. That must never happen.

 

Leviticus 18 has many different interpretations depending upon the bible one can refer to. The King James version writes "Do not lie with mankind as with womankind." Yet the New International Version writes "Do not have sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman." The Contemporary English version Interconfessional Edition is more succinct writing "It is disgusting for a man to have sex with another man."

Of these three interpretations the last quoted verse does not prohibit same sex relations. It only says it is disgusting. The other two and many other interpretations only say to not have same sex relations as you would with the opposite sex. Well since most men do not have a pussy it's pretty much impossible for a man to fuck a man as he would a woman.

If you go on to the New Testament, which is not included in all Bibles, a lot of the writings pull back from having sexual relations especially for pleasure. Sex only between a husband and his wife is mostly allowed for propagating the race. Fornication, sex outside marriage, is strictly advised against. I believe these authors felt the coming apocalypse was nigh and the need for sex abolished as all those who believe will be in a place of euphoria and all beings within are androgynous. As proof it is written in Paul's letter to The Galatians (3:28) "There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is not male and female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus"

The bottom line is if all of these different translations are a confusing mentality this can be dangerous if believed in.

 

Oh, sure - mention that one to a holy roller and sit back and listen to them waffling about them being without sin because Christ died on the cross to forgive us of our sins and... eye-rolling double talk that, again, if you hear it enough - and I sure did growing up and being made to go to church - you just don't pay any attention to it because they have an answer to and for everything. Dangerous still is the hypocrisy; I've sucked off quite a few male holy rollers and I've had quite a few female holy rollers who insisted that, yeah, they sinned but it was different because (add a bunch of stuff here that didn't have a lot to do with religion but being seriously horny). Methinks that if you're sinning "in the name of God," something's not right with this but if I've not learned anything else, it's that humans can justify anything that they do.

I really had a moment having sex with a holy roller and listening to him imploring God and Jesus to forgive him for his sin and as he loaded up my mouth and, later, my butt, with lots of his warm, gooey cum. Or the religious homophobes who felt they needed to "teach me a lesson" about being a real man by gaining carnal knowledge of me... and really believing that they'd tricked me into it when I knew what they wanted before they said what they wanted. When you're a holy roller and your reason for doing something immoral and sinful is "God will forgive me!", well, I'm not believing anything of what they have to say about religion. You cannot be riffing about the sins of the flesh when you're enjoying those same sins of the flesh. Oh, and then invoking "Do as I say, not as I do!"

Dangerous? Maybe to themselves and those who are afraid of them since, again, they have a history of doing violence in God's name. Their mentality defies logic and the moment they start quoting - misquoting - the Old Testament, I stop listening and just walk away...

 

That homosexuality is a sin isn't really at question because the various versions of the KJB says that it is and so does the other religions of the world. The question I had asked myself after my first experience with dick was, "How can something everyone says is so bad feel so good?" because, oh, yeah, it felt amazingly good to me but was in direct conflict with being told that it's a sin and it's evil and it's punishable by death. Why did it feel good? Because sex is supposed to feel good. The truth is that having sex isn't just between a male and a female and procreation isn't the only reason why we have sex and, you betcha, we can fornicate with the best of them, can't we - and fornication is a sin and I had wanted to know why it was... and got grounded for two weeks for asking questions about something I wasn't supposed to know about... which didn't change the fact that I knew about it.

Here's the thing: You're going to believe whatever you're going to believe in this unless or until you get disabused from that belief. And for a lot of men and women, a homosexual sex act is immoral and sinful... until it scratches that itch that they have and even then, they're lying to themselves about having such an itch.

 

The only experience I've had with this issue was having a female friend in Hawaii that told me that when she and her new boyfriend had sex for the first time, he started crying, got on his knees and begged forgiveness to god for committing 'the horrible sin
She said he made her feel pretty stupid.

 

I see nothing to support the claim of pedophilia, but it some gays have argued it is restricted to incest. The Hebrew is : w’eth-zäkhār lö’ tiškav miškevē ‘iššâ. This translates literally as: "With (a) male you shall not lie (the) lyings of a woman. (An) abomination is that." (Not crystal clear, I admit.). Miškevē (“lyings”) appears in only one other biblical passage: Gen. 49:4, involving an act of incest between Reuben and his father's concubine, which was considered to be incestuous. Some gays have argued that Lev.18 is meant to apply to only incestuous gay relations. Seems like a stretch to me. Lost in Translation: Alternative Meaning in Leviticus 18:22 – Queer Bible Hermeneutics

As for gays "having fun", moral norms in the sixth century favored the community or tribe over the individual. I certainly think it's arguable that the Leviticus18 verse is outmoded. The pressure for population growth has diminished, patriarchal gender norms have weakened, and the emphasis on individualism and romantic love has taken center stage. With a divorce rate as high as it is in our society, I think it's unwise to pressure people into marriage with partners they're not attracted to. And I think there are risks to giving gays the sole options of celibacy or covert promiscuous sex. Christians have had no problems getting past the dietary laws, circumcision , and the ban on tattoos in Leviticus. Gay clergyman Matthew Vines claims that Christians are living under a new covenant, the old one having been fulfilled by Jesus's sacrifice.

 

Other passages of the Old Testament that are said to condemn homosexuality are less direct, requiring inference to link them to homosexuality. Some speak of marriage as a union between man and woman.
Genesis 1:28. God blessed them and said to them, “Be fruitful and increase in number..." Hard to do if the partners are gay. But in a wold of 8 billion people, maybe not as imperative as it was when there were only two.
Genesis 2:24 : "Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and they shall become one flesh". "Wife" was a woman back then, and specifying that is thought to exclude alternatives.

Others condemn particular forms of immorality that can involve homosexuality--i.e., ritual prostitution.
Deuteronomy 23: 17-19: You must not bring the earnings of a female prostitute or of a male prostitute into the house of the LORD your God to pay any vow, because the LORD your God detests them both. Since the passage condemns both heterosexual and homosexual temple prostitution, it's hard to use it against homosexual non-prostitutes only.

I'll move on to the New Testament.

 

I'm thinking that you couldn't get a holy roller to admit what Tishomingo wrote other than them saying, "Yeah, but..." and their argument to discredit the actual passages tends to follow. I have said for decades now that the things we believe in are outdated and, yes outmoded and they just do not fit the way we are today. Population growth isn't as important as it was way, way, way, way back in those times and days our notion of gender roles and norms have been changing and we know that we can love whomever we want to and even if they're the same sex as we are and what it means to be in a relationship has changed.

My understanding is that the New Testament is the part of things we should be paying attention to and, yeah, I heard that we are living under a new covenant as well; instead of fearing the holy roller and their skewed mindset, perhaps we should either pity them or show them the tolerance that they, all too often, refuse to show anyone who doesn't believe the way they do.

 

Never underestimate the ability of fundamentalist apologists to find proof for their opinions. It is true that at no time did Jesus explicitly condemn homosexuality. But fundamentalists interpret Jesus' words about the sanctity of marriage (Matthew 19: 4-6) as implicitly condemning homosexuality.Is it fair to say because Jesus didn’t mention homosexuality, He was for it? He says: “Have you not read that He Who made them in the first place made them man and woman? 5 It says, ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and his mother and will live with his wife. The two will become one.’ 6 So they are no longer two but one. Let no man divide what God has put together.” Except He goes to to say: “Not all men are able to do this, but only those to whom it has been given. 12 For there are some men who from birth will never be able to have children. There are some men who have been made so by men. There are some men who have had themselves made that way because of the holy nation of heaven. The one who is able to do this, let him do it.” Hmmmm. And no, He doesn't mention homosexuality.

 

The "bottom line" is that despite what religion says - or doesn't say - about homosexuality, it's a part of human nature and a part that religion keeps trying to prevent, control, and even eradicate from the human condition... and they keep right on failing. Preaching the same old stuff over and over fits the definition of but what else is new? Even when they try to spin the same old stuff in a different way, it has changed nothing. I used to go to church every Sunday knowing that I was bisexual, my [first] wife was bisexual and so were quite a few of the people in the congregation and we had six members of our church who were 100% homosexual. Very little was preached about infidelity; fornication got a call-out every now and then but the angst toward homosexuality, well, I know it made our resident homosexuals very nervous and edgy until they realized that no matter what was being preached about it being a mortal sin, they were still homosexual.

One of the guys asked me if all the preaching against homosexuality bothered me and I allowed that it didn't because (1) I wasn't homosexual - I'm bisexual and there is a pointed difference and (2) I had realized a long time ago that the only person who could change this about me was me... and I wasn't of a mind to change a thing. Then I sucked the soul out of his body through his dick and I loved how he returned the favor because at the very bottom of it all, it's sex and you can't say that sex is normal and natural but then condemn homosexuality and homosexuals because of the way they have sex.

Let the holy rollers keep on rolling; in the meantime, a lot of men and women who are not heterosexual have lives to live...

 

It's at this point in the conversation where I have to ask: If the holy roller mentality bothers you, well, why does it? Why would you let it mess with your head and otherwise interfere with your life and sexuality?

 

Not to be outdone by the OT on the matter, passages in The New Testament condemn same sex practices in even broader terms than the Old Testament. Saint Paul the first to write about Christianity, made important contributions:

• Romans 1:18 18 The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of people, who suppress the truth by their wickedness, 19 since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. 20 For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse. Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. 25 They exchanged the truth about God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator-who is forever praised. Amen. 26 Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones. 27 In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error. 28 Furthermore, just as they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, so God gave them over to a depraved mind, so that they do what ought not to be done.

Here Paul extends the traditional taboo of Leviticus to lesbians for the first time. And he introduces a new line of argument: natural law--the notion that we can infer moral truths from the workings of nature. Homosexuality is "unnatural". Here Paul is embracing the natural law philosophy much in vogue in the Greco-Roman world of his day, especially among the school known as Stoicism. Paul uses the same term φυσις (phusis) to criticize men who wear long hair, suggesting he is equating it with unconventional. To be sure, evolution's prime directive is :be fruitful and multiply, and species and societies which ignore it are doomed to extinction. If God had created Adam and Steve instead of Eve, we wouldn't be here having this discussion. Nature's (evolution's) way of taking care of the problem is to select genes and memes inclining most of us toward heterosexuality. Obviously, it didn't work for some. In Paul's day, the notion of a stable sexual orientation out of the norm wasn't understood. A desire to pursue sex with a person of one's own gender was viewed as a sinful choice, which could be corrected by straightening up and flying right. Although the origin of homosexuality isn't fully understood in our own time, most psychologists (conversion therapists excepted) think it is a permanent or stable part of a person's personality that (s)he's essentially stuck with. That concept of homosexuality didn't exist in Paul's time, although the practice was probably as common as it is today. Male ritual prostitution was a feature of some ancient religions, notably devotion to the goddess Cybelle, whose priests (galli) were known to castrate themselves and serve a temple prostitutes.

It's noteworthy that the passage in Romans 1 is obviously discussing behavior driven by lust and promiscuity. Lust is intense, unbridled sexual desire or craving which is primarily driven by immediate physical gratification--as opposed to stable, loving relations. Whether heterosexual or homosexual, lust is something any stable society has to keep under some control. The notion that people could have loving, caring relations comparable to those in heterosexual marriage was unheard of in Paul's Jewish tradition. (The Greeks had a tradition of pederasty (relationships between men and adolescent boys). Whether or not Paul's words would be applicable to a loving relationship between men of similar age is debatable.

One notable passage often overlooked by the Holy Rollers. After going thru the aforementioned diatribe, Paul states (Rom. 2;2) that we must not judge them, "for at whatever point you judge another, you are condemning yourself, because you who pass judgment do the same things."

 

It bothers me cuz it recently almost broke up my church, the United Methodists, and still seems to be a big deal contributing to the political and religious divisions in our society!

 

I've known this to divide and destroy a few congregations and I saw it behaving in an interesting way at my own church and the only thing I can honestly say that bothered me about that was the lack of tolerance coming from some members and members who I knew shouldn't be throwing the first stone but when they needed something done and the homosexual members could do it the best, they wouldn't hesitate to call on them and the hypocrisy displayed really soured me on going to church because how are you going to be ranting and raving against homosexuality and homosexuals... but when you need them to do something for you, you're all up in their faces skinning and grinning?

I chose not to lose any sleep over the nonsense going on in not only my home church but in other churches as well. You can say that we should love our neighbors... but hate and vilify the neighbor who isn't
100% heterosexual and if this nonsense had caused my church to fracture and fall apart, well, too bad - it happened because their beliefs couldn't handle the reality of things. True enough, sexuality is still a hot-button topic that has gotten politics involved and I think it's sad that politics is firmly rooted in what the Old Testament has to say about homosexuality and this belief blinds them to the reality that's happening all around them.

Still not going to lose any sleep over their problems with something that I've learned isn't the evil problem it's been made out to be.

 

With so much unabashed hypocrisy in the world today, you indeed have to wonder of what vile sins of "carnal lust" the "holy-rollin' evangelists themselves might be indulging in, behind closed doors.

Recall the saying: "Do as I say, not as I do".

Also, there has to be more than a few "straight" Bible-thumpin' evangelists who freely indulge in m/m sex "discreetly" on the side, when "the sin of lust" grips them tightly ("don't ask, don't tell")...........

 

I've had carnal knowledge of a few holy rollers and I know they were guilty of the sins of fornication, adultery and, oh, yeah - engaging in homosexual sex. Doesn't mean that they weren't really believers but needs always must. I got one hell of a blowjob from a deacon from another church in the city; he propositioned me, I accepted and for the same reason he made the offer: I was horny and I wanted to suck cock and have mine sucked. It wasn't until he started going down on me that I recognized him - but I didn't say anything because (a) he was sucking my dick and (b) calling him out on it served no real purpose.

And (c) I didn't really care and if you sin and die and go to hell for your sin, well, I know I won't be there alone and will have plenty of company and especially holy rollers who were also all about the pleasures of the flesh.

 

I suppose Unholy Roller would be a better term.

If possible we should feel sorry fot them. Without a true perspective on life and everything in it, they know not what they say.

Or "pity the fool" to quote Mr T.

 

1 Corinthians 6:9–10 9 Or do you not know that the unrighteous 1 will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners will inherit the kingdom of God. First thing to note is this passage isn't just about gays. First on the list are fornicators--i.e., heterosexuals who engage in extra-marital sex. Nor are all the offenders committing sexual offenses of any kind. Thieves, greedy folks, and swindlers are also on the list. Getting down to the effeminate and abusers of themselves with mankind, these seem to have something to do with some kind of gay sex. This is the King James Version rendering of the Greek terms malakoi (softies) and arsenokotai (man bedders). Just what those terms mean leaves much to the imagination, and has changed over the centuries. The KJV rendering effeminate") leaves open the interpretation that limp wrists and swishy behavior might be involved. John Wesley, the founder of my church, thought it meant weak-willed. "Man-bedder" seems to have something to do with men having sex in bed. Just what is unclear. Some modern translations Some modern translations view malakoi as those who take the passive role in gay sex, while arsenokotai take the active role. Seems logical, but not really clear from the language or context. Others cut to the chase and just say "men who practice homosexuality" for both (ESV) or just "homosexuals" (NAS). The latter translations are problematic, since there was no general concept of "homosexuality" in Paul's day. and no basis for such a broad, general label, especially one that makes no distinction between orientation and practice. So it's vague.

 

Abusers of themselves=masturbators?
Holy shit, you can't even jerk off?

 

As Tishomingo says, the terms leave much to the imagination and is open to interpretation, i.e., a "man-bedder" could be a woman... but probably not. An "abuser of themselves" could be someone addicted to alcohol or drugs or otherwise into things that was considered to be impure - I had a neighbor give me a bunch of holy rollerism about my tattoos and how I shouldn't have defiled the temple of my body. As a result, I got to "defile" her temple since, ah, she wanted to know if I had tattoos somewhere that couldn't be easily seen, and I was happy to show them to her. But before I got into those panties, man, did she ever preach to me about not really being a Christian, so on and so forth.

Was this something that I considered dangerous? No but I was curious as to why she decided to pick on me and be all up in my business, like watching me swim naked in my pool; I did see her in a bedroom window watching me and I did nothing to hide myself because I was in my pool in my yard but, yeah, her being a holy roller of sorts set things up for us to gain great carnal knowledge of each other. And despite a couple of sins being committed, she remained a staunch believer in what religion taught her. I did ask her why we were about to make love if she knew that adultery is a sin and she said, "You make my panties wet..." before she kissed me and, well, the rest was history. She could quote the bible chapter and verse and like so many holy rollers I'd encountered but even today and thinking about her, she wasn't dangerous, but I found her amusing when I told her that I knew a few things about sucking dick and she went all Old Testament on me - then we made love. The only danger was her husband finding out but not really because, apparently the two of them had the same arrangement that me and my wife had: an open marriage.

Seems to be at odds with stodgy religious belief but even he had said that as much as he believed in what religion says, the two of them still had a life to live and it was really up to them to live it to the best extent possible and almost echoing what my wife and I had said to each other when we went open. Lots of sinning with her but her belief didn't make her dangerous outside of deluding herself but, she was... complicated.