Do any straight boys like being sucked by a boy?

---

LOL - a post of SteveA's I actually agree with.

Thank God. I'll be able to rest easy tonight.

i would prob like it then feel guilty becuz thats so gay and homosexuality is a sin. its in the bible go look it up. im not badmouthing or trying to"turn u from your ways" im just stating u shood check your facts about wut is and isnt a sin before u explode at sumone. hey ur a kool dood ive read sum of ur other posts around the site and u seem to be a good person. so pleez dont be angry with me.

Sin is relative to the religion of the "sinner". Even in Christianity, not all sects, of the faith, believe that homosexuality is a sin.The "truth" of faith is different for everybody, so truth is relative to the individual. Even in the most fundamental sects of religion, and within believers themselves, there will be internal disagreements about the "true" interpretations of texts, passages, and oral statements.

In reply to: The "truth" of faith is different for everybody, so truth is relative to the individual. I disagree. While interpretations of truth might be relative, truth is what it is regardless of interpretation. We might all have differing interpretation about what Jack Kerouac meant when he said that until you understand the mysteries of the Banana King, you know absolutely nothing about the human interest things of life (not an accurate quote), but he only meant one thing when he said it, and that meaning exists entirely independent of our interpretation.

The problem is that if something is written poetically in an ancient dead language, no one really knows what "truth" is being expressed, if any. Even the scholars argue. Then there's the issue of the provenance of said writings, but that's another quagmire. Therefore, using those writings to judge people, and their actions and lifestyles, is highly questionable.

I agree. We may never know the author's intent, if it isn't clearly stated. In reply to: The problem is that if something is written poetically in an ancient dead language, no one really knows what "truth" is being expressed, if any. If you're referring to the Bible, most of the Bible is not poetic.

...and Hebrew and Greek are hardly "dead languages".

The bible is not written in modern Greek, modern Hebrew, or modern Aramaic. I've read about translating from ancient Hebrew, and let me tell you, translating from ancient Hebrew into modern English is not easy. I surely wouldn't take anything from the King James bible literally. It reads beautifully, but the translation is not to be trusted. Whoever wants to believe it's the inspired word of God....well, I have a bridge for sale.

In reply to: The bible is not written in modern Greek, modern Hebrew, or modern Aramaic. But it is Greek, Hebrew and Aramaic nonetheless. There is also what is called Old English. Doesn't make English a dead language. In reply to:I've read about translating from ancient Hebrew, and let me tell you, translating from ancient Hebrew into modern English is not easy. You've read about translating from ancient Hebrew? I've actually translated from ancient Hebrew. And you're right. It's not easy. But it can be done.

Can we please get back on the topic? Please!?!?Cool your jets, the thread is ancient and dead. Do you have anything relevant to add to the subject, or are you today's designated shepherd? Is being sucked by another boy a sin or what?Damien> You've read about translating from ancient Hebrew? I've actually translated from ancient Hebrew. And you're right. It's not easy. But it can be done.I'm sure you're a great man, but there are learned scholars who argue about the meaning of passages. Your idea that the ancient scriptures were not written in a poetic manner is disputed by many scholars. Some words have no direct translation; the intention of what was written, in many cases, is open to dispute. If it's all crystal clear to you, then good for you.

Look, I never said it was crystal clear to me.
I never said there was no debate over meaning of certain passages.
As far as scholars who would say the entire Bible was written in a poetic manner, as we generally understand poetic, there are a lot more scholars who would say they are wrong.

Perhaps "metaphorical" would be a better term than "poetic". And I don't mean every word of every passages. There are certain key words in some places that are not easy to translate, but profoundly affect the meaning of certain passages.It's not like interpreting Shakespeare. Old English is much closer to modern English than ancient Hebrew is. There's an independent historical record of what was going on in England and a lot of the rest of the world during Shakespeare's life. Much of what he wrote was topical, and came directly from the culture and politics of his time. There is no parallel source of information for most of the bible, certainly not for the Old Testament. And the New Testament is rather sketchy, given that it was written years after Jesus' death. No contemporary of Jesus was a note taker, apparently.The bottom line is that if you think homosexuality is a sin because the bible tells you so, then you might as well let an astrologer pick your stocks. It's that silly, with the insidious side effect of causing a whole class of people to suffer.Anyway, if you go by what Jesus spoke of (as quoted in the New Testament), he had other things on His mind than homosexuality, given that he mentioned it zero times. But if you want to think of a straight/non-straight boy being sucked by another boy as sinful behavior, it's your privilege. Not so long ago, masturbation was considered a sin. It still is for some people. How very quaint. At least no one's getting tossed into volcanoes.

That's blasphemy, although some people subscribe to that idea. But it wasn't the first holy book, and many others followed (including L. Ron Hubbard's works). But at least Hubbard's stuff isn't such an exercise in translation and interpretation, and celebrities dig it.

Are you calling me primitive and uneducated?

In reply to: There is no parallel source of information for most of the bible, certainly not for the Old Testament. There are parallel sources. I.E. the histories of Josephus, a secular historian. In reply to: And the New Testament is rather sketchy, given that it was written years after Jesus' death. No contemporary of Jesus was a note taker, apparently. Most of the New Testament was written within relatively few years of the death of Christ, by contemporaries of Christ. That's such a lame argument. Are you going to apply that same standard to histories being written today? In reply to: The bottom line is that if you think homosexuality is a sin because the bible tells you so I wasn't even adressing that topic. I was talking ONLY about hermeneutics. Please keep up.

There are parallel sources. I.E. the histories of Josephus, a secular historian.It gets pretty hard to pick out what's real and what's not in Josephus' writings, or the writings attributed to him, not that he was not significant. Name another source.> Most of the New Testament was written within relatively few years of the death of Christ, by contemporaries of Christ. That's such a lame argument.It was an oral tradition. Name one contemporary of Jesus who wrote anything down. The question of who wrote the canonical gospels is open, and not easy to answer. Then there's Q, and all that stuff. And don't forget about the Gnostic gospels.> Are you going to apply that same standard to histories being written today?Yes! Judging by the reactions to James Frey's fictional biography, a lot of people don't care what's real and what's not. I'm one of the many who do care. Even with a lot of corroborating historical data, it's not always clear what the real story is. And most authors exhibit some sort of bias. That's clearly true in American and world histories. But the contemporaries of Jesus seemed to think that the second coming was always just around the corner, so they didn't write things down.I don't even accept the writings of the greatest historians as true by definition.> I wasn't even adressing that topic. I was talking ONLY about hermeneutics.Nice word. I'm trying to keep this discussion relevant to the thread, or we should take it elsewhere.> Please keep up.That was unnecessarily hostile.

In reply to:> Please keep up.That was unnecessarily hostile. Now you're being hypocritical.That was the exact same phrase you spouted at me not two days ago. You should be able to take as good as you give.

Did you just trot that out because you were just itching to toss it back at me? Look here and you'll see that the context was completely different. Was it another case where you were trying to score points, and you were typing so fast you didn't take the time to understand what was being discussed?

would prob like it then feel guilty becuz thats so gay and homosexuality is a sin.its in the bible go look it up. im not badmouthing or trying to"turn u from your ways" im just stating u shood check your facts about wut is and isnt a sin before u explode at sumone.First off, I wasn't bad mouthing anyone. He came into a thread and decided to add a hateful comment where it was not needed. As for me sinning, sorry when it loving someone a sin? What I do on a daily life affect you and your daily life in any way? Absolutely not. You call my life a sin, and yet by you saying that you have sinned. Though shall not judge. When it comes to the day I die and I have to face the heavenly father, it'll be between him and myself, not what you (or anyone on the earth) think and feel. Honestly though, my god is a love god and I know he would never send someone to hell for something as pure as Love.Back to you point of sin again, something maybe you are not aware of, that there is no sin greater than another other sin. Everyday we ALL sin. Your sins are not less of a sin than mine... they are equal. >hey ur a kool dood ive read sum of ur other posts around the site and u seem to be a good person. so pleez dont be angry with me. And don't worry I am not angry with you. What "irritates" me, is when people want to throw around the bible. You stated I need to go "check my facts" but I have my facts, problem is people who want to class themselves as die hard Christians need to check their facts and check themselves with God.