Trefor Heywood

Tom Strange Pretty much, you quite often have the DVD out before it's even screened here. It is the same with your shows, most of them don't matter but it's annoying being behind on Six Feet Under and The West Wing! Trefor Heywood "Cymru Am Byth!"

I thought Mystic River was in Connecticut, I once saw a documentary about Mystic Seaport. Is it now a film then? Trefor Heywood "Cymru Am Byth!"

I was one of her sponsors for a while. I sent an email to her in Germany but no reply so think it might be a dead end. Trefor Heywood "Cymru Am Byth!"

Jbarrax Natural is one of those words which also gets bandied around. If you had been raised in an environment where you were used to see such things and had not had a lifetime of other influences saying different I doubt you would bat an eyelid and give it a second thought. The example of the dog is somewhat different, given that it is not the same species. Now I have had a dogs trying to have sex with my leg, some have been male dogs and some female dogs. That was the dog's choice not mine, it tried to initiate it, I didn't. The dog doesn't see anything wrong with it, but being human, I do and therefore try to stop the dog carrying on. I am not repulsed by this but I know it is not appropriate to encourage it in it's behaviour. No way do I then go ahead and bash the dog, it has acted upon some impulse or other, it has not been trained to do it or encouraged to do it. Now a human initating such behaviour is different. Even if I had not had other influences telling me so I should find it weird and strange. Trefor Heywood "Cymru Am Byth!"

Tom Strange Yes I agree, heterosexuals do not have the monopoly on "Jerk"ness. I have encountered a few who "bat for my side" too! :D--> My head is spinning at all that numerology of Todd's too exousia. Todd asks "Can "male and female created he them" of Genesis refer to the spirit of an individual?" It's an interesting thought but I would think that the original writer or Genesis was thinking in physical terms, that the fig leaves were hiding different organs rather than different spirits! ;)--> The common expression "the other half" is less liekly to be taken from Genesis than from Greek philosophy. In Plato's Symposium the idea is expressed that in some prelife state two halves of an egg are split and the halves resulting spend their time trying to find each other in this life. The person expressing the idea is talking about homosexual, not heterosexual love (well the ancient greeks were more into that kind of thing). But the idea of incompletion is there and also in Genesis. It could refer to the spiritual and the mental as much as the physical, as flesh is only in the "oneness" stage for part of the time. Trefor Heywood "Cymru Am Byth!"

Todd If I get you right you are saying that there is a sexual energy underlying many things and that gender is secondary to that? johniam - many women do have masculine side but that doesn't make them all lesbians just as a feminine side doesn't make all men homosexual. It is not a question of gender but of attitude - some men are good at housework, cooking, looking after the kids, some men are tender hearted, some men are into appearance and fashion. If you "don't need a feminine anything" you might be a monosexual, refusing, like the monks of Mouth Athos, anything of feminine influence. Jbarrax I wish it WAS a myth. The gut reactions you cite have to have a cause and it is not just whether or not people are "forced to witness". I cited that many guys love witnessing women making out becuase that is no threat to their sense of their masculinity. Homosexuals have been attacked and physically abused just for being homosexuals, they have not had to do anything remotely provocative in the first place. It may well be that you yourself knowing that someone is gay, are OK about it providing they "don't scare the horses", but that does not mean that everyone is the same. And what causes the "basic repulsion" you cite? I would still say fear - men kissing and holding hands in public is more than you think you can stomach and yet heterosexual couple pass you by without a second glance. Showing of love and affection in public should not be a crime, nor excite such reactions. Hell in other cultures, men walking hand in hand arm in arm and kissing is considered perfectly normal and these guys are hetero! They have not, however, been raised in a narrow, strait laced culture which limits and controls how one expresses emotion and friendship. You see certain behaviour and you find it objectionable precisely because it is based on a judgement which automatically connects to something you are not actually seeing, ie a sexual act. On that basis Jesus and his beloved disciple would have been bashed. Remember he lays on Jesus' breast? Raf Thank you. I can quite agree that sometimes the word can be used inadvisedly and without weighing up the facts but humans are very good at that. Not all opposition is based on classicly rabid homophibia, and I am pleased to report that I do not find much of it in Greasespot. Yes you have to be interested. Women are used to being hit on by men and have to take it in their stride. All a man has to say, like many of the women whom he flirts with, is "no thanks". There are some hetero guys who are flattered that they have a gay following though! Dot SF is not typical of gay behaviour the world over. There are places there where heterosexual residents are in a minority and majority behaviour is therefore different. If it was in the Castro for example. That does not excuse the people getting indignant or throwing out the phrase so casually. But then when gays are in minority they have to put up with many insults and taunts, "faggot" and "queer" being some of the more repeatable ones. Think of an attractive lesbian girl in a supermarket being chatted up by the local lothario, he is convinced that he is God's gift to women and is unused to rejection. His male ego requires that she submit and cannot handle the rejection. He is going to use words that don't really fit the situation too. Yes the SF guys should have admitted they were wrong. But then so should the lothario. There is no excuse for rudeness in any situation. johaniam (again) I do my best not to get heated. I also appreciate that there is a distinction between homophobia and thinking that it not Godly. Trouble is I guess, and yes I know it doesn't apply to all, we have all been exposed to TWI influence on the subject and this may still colour some people's views. I don't get vituperative normally towards what people post but I am entitled to challenge what people think is the biblical view, I myself have also had to take this into account in reaching the position I have today. vertical limit If I remember rightly I said "might have been gay, or at least bisexual." Such terms as we use today were not known then. But the way their relationship is described at least allows some questions. We know they also had women in their lives, in David's case a LOT of women :D--> but I find no parallel which says how their hearts were together and that their "love exceeded that of women". Whether or not they ever did anything is secondary to the sheer intensity of their relationship. exousia Acceptance is happening. It is not the big issue in the younger generation that it is with the older ones. In many parts of the world there have been major strides towards acceptance, equal rights, and decriminilisation (sp). There are also new understandings in many parts of the relgious world. I am unable to paint quite as black a picture as you. Trefor Heywood "Cymru Am Byth!"

I'm seriously trying to work out the meaning of what you say Todd. But I still think its the male bonding thing, the membership of the male club, the machismo, that is the destructive element. Men have always sought to dominate politics and religion and affairs and business but in sexual matters, no matter how huggy and back clappy they get it's the women they go for. They protest their abhorrence of men having sex with men whilst happily watching porn showing women having sex with women. That's why lesbianism has never be considered worth making illegal, because such men are stimulated by that and not threatened. But they see the idea of men loving men sexually as a threat, a surrender of that machismo masculinity, "letting the side down" if you will and will find all kinds of religious, ethical and social reasons for condemning it. They think of it in terms of acts rather than an orientation that has mental and spiritual connotations - "backs to the wall guys, there is a queer about" etc. They flatter themselves that the queer guy actually is attracted to them even though it is statistically unlikely just as they don't fancy every woman they see. Such a book would no doubt make interesting reading. I think it's a topic that needs covering in greater depth, hopefully in order to correct the many misunderstandings and misapprehensions that pertain. Trefor Heywood "Cymru Am Byth!"

exousia These days I am somewhat inclined to agree with Mel White, having exhausted the alternative possibilities. sirguessalot You are certainly guessing here! The man man thing is down to masculine machismo not sexuality. Homosexuals are more likely to be in touch with their feminine side than many heterosexuals. Trefor Heywood "Cymru Am Byth!"

ex What would you call the cult? Maybe I should start my own - TGI - The Gay International! :D--> Trefor Heywood "Cymru Am Byth!"

wordwolf No translation has THE authority and neither what people say they think means has either. I cannot put it any more simply. The Bible we have is on the authority of the Catholic church, the decisions of men after all. rascal Thanks for your kind remarks. My thoughts and ideas are do not only come from one source. I am no lopnger merely beholden to the Word as TWI would have us believe it to be. johniam You are confusing sex (ie gender) and sexuality. Let us hear a scholarly rebuttal of the site from you. One does not need to "throw out" things as you put it, one needs to understand context and also be aware that the guys who wrote the bible were still human and subject to the influences of their time. Dies Paul's attitude to slavery justify it now? Of course not. Is his attitude to women in church justified now? Of course not. Did he always obey what he was told? Nope. And yes I am no different but I am considered so by some. wow76-78 Heck TWI even instilled into me anti-gay sentiments! :)--> I had just a big a battle with it as anybody else does as a concept but being a personal thing also this was doubly difficult. I guess it depends on various influences how you view it. I am always reminded of the words of that song: "You've got to be taught before it's too late Before you are six or seven or eight To hate all the people your relatives hate You've got to be carefully taught." zix Firstly the child molester bit is a non-sequitur but so many just cannot resist using it. Secondly I resent being likened to Wierwille. I do not use my power or position to take advantage of people. Neither do I selectively dismiss parts I don't like. I dismiss what people have selected from it to claim it says a certain thing. because I dispute and disagree the interpretation of those passages and the assumptions made from them does not put me into the realm of situational theology although I believe it can sometimes have a role where it is not a case of "good" and "best" but the lesser of the two evils. And quickly back to johniam - it's nothing to do with political correctness which is often taken to extremes of ludicrousness but it is everything to do with recognising that people are different and have a right to be so and to be afforded equal respect and rights. Trefor Heywood "Cymru Am Byth!"

Wordwolf I am not sure that I have ever said that the Bible is just "some book" nor even how it puts me in agreement with Mike. What I have queried was how it is read and used and how it is untreated as some unchanging unquestionable authority that has an answer for everything if you read it carefully enough. Hell, I LOVE the Bible, I just don't like the way it is used. Trefor Heywood "Cymru Am Byth!"

johniam Firstly you must remember the "written word" he had was not the same as that which we have. he only had the Old Testament to go by and he still contradicted the popular understanding of what it meant. The scribes and the pharisees thought they were experts on that "written word". The absence of one thing being discussed and the absence of another is not a logical argument. Jesus said nothing about TWI or the internet or the theory of relativity either. But in the things you cite you don't need Jesus or the Bible to tell you that such things as you cite are socially unacceptable. I will agree with you on TWI. Does God *really* decide what is natural by having it written down in a book or does he decide what is natural in elements of his creation? You cite an obscure text which is in any case mistranlsated as a QED. I would like to refer you to: http://www.truluck.com/html/the_bible_and_homosexuality.html Where you can examine the so called "Bible Bullets" in more depth. You also make an assumption that I have not already tried what you suggest - hell being in TWI of course I did and believe me it doesn't work. Could it *posibly* be because God is happy with me as I am, that is how he created me? You will no doubt disagree but that is my conclusion now. And neither did the "super spiritual VPW or LCM neither nor anyone I knew in TWI except the ones I actually told. I always thought that IF it was that important somebody would have had the necessary revelation. At least you admit your prejudice. My argument is that the Bible can be used to back up loads of different prejudices including racial and sexual ones. It has been used to justify slavery, polygamy, mass murder, discrimination against women, war and many other things. It is just so easy to read things into the Bible that you already believe. It reminds me of Trollope's Barchester novels where Mrs Proudie, the Bishop's wife is always saying: "the Bishop thinks, and I must say I agree with him" when what the Bishop thinks has never been clearly expressed. Well of course. I don't hate people either for their views but I do believe it's important to challenge them. :D--> Trefor Heywood "Cymru Am Byth!"

johniam It's a really big IF. I always ask people, and they are never able to anwser, why Jesus never expressed an "opinion" on the subject. Considering how "important" it is supposed to be it was hardly high on his list of priorities. I also ask why, if it is so "perverted" is it always found in a percentage of the human and even the aninmal population? If God was so worried about it why would people have this orientation which they are born with? I have great problems with a God who allows somebody to be made a particular way and then shoots them down for being what they are. This idea of "perversion" is based upon the philosophical misconstruct of that is termed the "natural law". But that can only work if only one thing is empirically "natural" as a yardstick to judge by. This is not the case - what is "natural" for a heterosexual is not the same for a homosexual and it could be argued that to try to be the opposite of one's nature is a perversion. You are entitled to your belief but it is not really based upon the Bible but on your contruct of God and you therefore read it a certain way, and not surprisingly therefore find that God agrees with you, just as we found that God agreed with VPW in CFAS or any other class. "It aint necessarily so, it aint necessarily so, the things that you liable to read in the Bible, it aint necessarily so." Trefor Heywood "Cymru Am Byth!"

Mike wrote: This is a ridiculous statement even for Mike. God should be apologising to us for allowing us to be so spiritiually, physically and mentally, misled and screwed up by TWI. God wraught ZILCH in PFAL, it was all the work (and plagiarised at that) of one Victor Paul Wierwille. Get it in your head Mike: VPW is NOT God! PFAL is NOT God or God's work! We have absolutely nothing to apoligise for. Well I took a class on orientalisms and THAT one was never mentioned! The only close thing I can think of was the Roman method of testimony - they swore with their hands on their balls hence how we get the word TESTimony from TESTES. I doubt very much that the clothing was "condusive". As you know, I'm gay and even I would not like anybody grabbing mine without permission! Trefor Heywood "Cymru Am Byth!"

johniam I have read Lerviticus - do you eat shellfish? Do you wear mixed fibre clothes? These are also listed as "abominations". You have no idea of the context and neither have you of how outdated what is contained therein is. David could have been homosexual, or at least bisexual, his relationship with Jonathan is certainly presented in an interesting way. Ruth and Naomi could also have had an intesresting relationship as could Jesus and his "beloved disciple". Such simplistic arguments and assumptions are what let Wierwille get away with what he did. You can make the Bible prove anything you want to and clothe sex or anti sex with a religious garb. I don't buy simplistic "the Bible says" arguments becuase how you read it is obviously very different to how I read it, your view of God is very different to mine. Trefor Heywood "Cymru Am Byth!"

johniam Not so simple as you make out and I challenge the mentality that continues to link homosexuality with other things. You are probably right, however, about it being a family input and it remained that way until relatively recent times, the mother giving advice to the daughter just before her marriage etc. As to incest, was that not how the human race originally increased? In PFAL, VPW taught that Adam and Eve's sons married their sisters, that was OK then because the blood was still relatively pure. Trefor Heywood "Cymru Am Byth!"

The class did seem to be fairly denigrating towards women. I remember VPW using a phrase like "A wife should be an angel in the kitchen and a whore in the bedroom". When she wasn't cooking, was he renting Dotsie out? :D--> Trefor Heywood "Cymru Am Byth!"

It was far more about sex than the Christian Family. I will confess that I learnt a couple of things from that side of it! Trefor Heywood "Cymru Am Byth!"

And the Mormons identify Jesus as the Old Testament Jehovah! So we do seem to have quite a variety of views about him to contend with! Never heard of Mr (Dr, Rev or whatever) Buzzard. I was wondering what TWI offshoots such as C.E.S. might think - do they still embrace what VPW taught? Trefor Heywood "Cymru Am Byth!"

I didn't mean to infer that you did imply otherwise Rafael :D--> Of those who adopt the unitarian position I am not sure how many follow the Arian model though and how many follow the Socinian. Any ideas? Trefor Heywood "Cymru Am Byth!"

If I remember rightly Raphael the viewpoint that believes that Jesus did not have an actual existence until birth was called Socinianism. Arius never denied his pre-existence. Trefor Heywood "Cymru Am Byth!"

Thanks TheEvan. One of the probs with VPW's exegesis I failed to mention was that he went beyond what many Unitarian postions would accept in that he denied the pre-existance of Christ and that gave his position even more problems than merely being anti-Trinity. Merely claiming he existed in God's foreknowledge does not cut the mustard with John 1, Jesus's statement that "before Abraham was I AM" or various other passages including that about Jesus being prophesied to be born in Bethlehem as one whose "goings forth have been from the beginning". When I saw he was unconvincing in that area I had to question his certainties in other areas also. What surely matters more is the quality of the relationship rather than the definition. Trefor Heywood "Cymru Am Byth!"

They made that kind of claim when Jesus Christ is NOT God came out. Because VPW could not comprehend the Trinity and he did not like "mysteries" he went to great lengths to prove that it could not be so. But his exposition of John chapter one was always his great problem and he just failed completely to pull it off by throwing different usages of the "word" to try and make it fit his theory. For him Son (huios) can never be God(theos)and trying to "fit the few verses in with the many" produced some very strange and difficult exegesis. Nor did he actually cover all the passages that he should have. I am not saying by any means that the Trinity is proved, but neither is is disproved and at the end of the day what does it really matter? It simply makes one group of christians shout "heresy" at another. What is heresy has been made to much of - it comes from the greek aeresis which simply means the holding of a contrary opinion and it seems that for pro or anti it is more opinion based rather than biblically demonstrable. Trefor Heywood "Cymru Am Byth!"

If you leave Grease Spot won't you be in danger of returning to TWI by midnight? Trefor Heywood "Cymru Am Byth!"

Is GreaseSpot like Hotel California then? "You can check in any time you like but you can never leave"? If you do part company def - best wishes. Trefor Heywood "Cymru Am Byth!"