Homosexuality and the Bible

Homosexuality and the Bible

There are 36053 comments on the www.smh.com.au story from Aug 15, 2011, titled Homosexuality and the Bible. In it, www.smh.com.au reports that:

Given the ongoing debate about same-sex marriage, it is time I looked at the two Testaments to remind myself why belief is so hard for me to embrace.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at www.smh.com.au.

Since: Aug 09

Location hidden

#23085 Dec 6, 2013
cory71 wrote:
<quoted text>
I'm curious, is this a source of your "true statement" and "reptilian heritage"?
http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/sumer_anunn ...
You asked this question before in post #23042.

I didn't consider it a serious question then, anymore than I do now.

Since: Aug 09

Location hidden

#23087 Dec 6, 2013
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
Jesus addressed the question of divorce by reaffirming what God intended in marriage. You know that, but are trying to divert because it condemns your view.
I understand fully what you are attempting. You are promoting a perversion of marriage that is in direct conflict with what Jesus said, that is why you are unable to directly counter the outline I presented.
The irony is, the most specific passage on marriage, quoted three times in Scripture, is impossible to use at a supposed gay ceremony.
OK.

Since the question posed by the Pharisees specifically asked if a man could divorce his wife, how do YOU get from there to the response that Jesus' reply forbids a same-sex marriage?

You can't. He never said anything of the sort, as reported in scripture.

Period. End of statement. Irrefutable.

All you have left is your own extensions and interpretations of the concepts presented. These you brazenly make, as if they are the very words of Jesus,... which they are not.

Try as you might, you cannot make this questioning and the answering discussion of Marriage and Divorce, in Matthew 19, into a condemnation of same-sex marriage. It is simply not part of the discussion.

However,...

When His disciples respond by saying that a man should never get married (inferring that the spiritual and contractual obligations of marriage are nearly impossible to comply with), Jesus brings up a couple of very interesting points.

First, He gives some conditions under which a person can remarry (not to mention that adultery is later shown to be forgivable).

Second, He acknowledges that not being married at all is acceptable.

Third, He acknowledges that there are persons who are neither "classically" [my emphasis] male or female. The scripture gives the Greek word, translated from the Aryan, to be eunuch.

But, "eunuch" is generally defined as "sexless." That is, not interested in having sex. Homosexuality, on the other hand, is a sexual orientation very much interested in having sex.

So, to be brutally honest about the scripture here, Matthew 19, nothing is reported as having been said by Jesus which either defines homosexuality as any kind of sin or either condemns or approves of same-sex relationship.

Sorry, Mr. Kimare.

It is my sincere hope that you will be able to come to a very necessary change of heart and mind; A change that makes room for a group of very deserving people. A change that I believe Jesus has made and asks you and me to make, also.

... What you are insisting upon as being clearly defined in this series of chapter and verse, is simply your own imagination and desire for what YOU wish to hang onto, as previously, traditionally endorsed, institutionalized hypocrisy and bigotry. In that sense, it is no different from scriptural justification for the institution of human slavery.

Time is up. No good, anymore.

In fact, if logic and the reality of inborn homosexuality are to be acknowledged - and these do make the foundation for cultural-moral-social-spiritua l-lawful acknowledgment of the same-sex pair-bond, as created and approved by God - then this particular section of scripture and the Teachings of Jesus must be interpreted to endorse the extension of the Sacrament of Marriage to include same-sex marriage.

"Suffer the little children to come unto me,...."

... Your outline, as presented, duly countered and sent, irretrievably, to the round file via the Shredder of Jesus Christ.

Oh, and as for the wording, we'll figure it out.
As above, so below.

Rev. Ken
A priest and disciple of the Lord, Christ Jesus.

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#23088 Dec 6, 2013
KiMare wrote:
The lesbian waitress who claimed she received an anti-gay note in lieu of a tip promised to donate the subsequent gratuities that poured in to the Wounded Warrior Project — but the veterans organization reportedly can’t verify it had received any donations from Dayna Morales.
Morales, a 22-year-old former Marine, claimed last month that a family of four who racked up a $93.55 bill at the Gallop Asian Bistro in Branchburg, N.J., left her no tip, only a note saying they couldn’t leave any extra cash for her service because they “do not agree with your lifestyle.”
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2013/12/06/wounded-...
You claim to be lesbian.

Since: Aug 09

Location hidden

#23090 Dec 6, 2013
cory71 wrote:
<quoted text>
Interesting, but you push for answers to your questions from other members.
If it is part of what you believe it is a serious question, I was giving you the opportunity to give proof of your belief beyond your opinion.
No. You asked if I endorse the material presented in the website you presented.

Again, I don't consider your question to be sincere or serious.

Since: Aug 09

Location hidden

#23091 Dec 6, 2013
In reply to Kimare's repeated efforts to discredit himself, I wrote:
RevKen wrote:
<quoted text>

Third,...

The scripture gives the Greek word, translated from the Aryan, to be eunuch.

...
Pardonnez-moi.

I wrote "Aryan."

I meant to write "Aramaic," in reference to the language of Jesus.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#23092 Dec 6, 2013
RevKen wrote:
<quoted text>
OK.
Since the question posed by the Pharisees specifically asked if a man could divorce his wife, how do YOU get from there to the response that Jesus' reply forbids a same-sex marriage?
You can't. He never said anything of the sort, as reported in scripture.
Period. End of statement. Irrefutable.
All you have left is your own extensions and interpretations of the concepts presented. These you brazenly make, as if they are the very words of Jesus,... which they are not.
Try as you might, you cannot make this questioning and the answering discussion of Marriage and Divorce, in Matthew 19, into a condemnation of same-sex marriage. It is simply not part of the discussion.
However,...
When His disciples respond by saying that a man should never get married (inferring that the spiritual and contractual obligations of marriage are nearly impossible to comply with), Jesus brings up a couple of very interesting points.
First, He gives some conditions under which a person can remarry (not to mention that adultery is later shown to be forgivable).
Second, He acknowledges that not being married at all is acceptable.
Third, He acknowledges that there are persons who are neither "classically" [my emphasis] male or female. The scripture gives the Greek word, translated from the Aryan, to be eunuch.
But, "eunuch" is generally defined as "sexless." That is, not interested in having sex. Homosexuality, on the other hand, is a sexual orientation very much interested in having sex.
So, to be brutally honest about the scripture here, Matthew 19, nothing is reported as having been said by Jesus which either defines homosexuality as any kind of sin or either condemns or approves of same-sex relationship.
Sorry, Mr. Kimare.
It is my sincere hope that you will be able to come to a very necessary change of heart and mind; A change that makes room for a group of very deserving people. A change that I believe Jesus has made and asks you and me to make, also.
... What you are insisting upon as being clearly defined in this series of chapter and verse, is simply your own imagination and desire for what YOU wish to hang onto, as previously, traditionally endorsed, institutionalized hypocrisy and bigotry. In that sense, it is no different from scriptural justification for the institution of human slavery.
Time is up. No good, anymore.
In fact, if logic and the reality of inborn homosexuality are to be acknowledged - and these do make the foundation for cultural-moral-social-spiritua l-lawful acknowledgment of the same-sex pair-bond, as created and approved by God - then this particular section of scripture and the Teachings of Jesus must be interpreted to endorse the extension of the Sacrament of Marriage to include same-sex marriage.
"Suffer the little children to come unto me,...."
... Your outline, as presented, duly countered and sent, irretrievably, to the round file via the Shredder of Jesus Christ.
Oh, and as for the wording, we'll figure it out.
As above, so below.
Rev. Ken
A priest and disciple of the Lord, Christ Jesus.
Interesting. According to you, marriage is not based on genders, but Jesus needed to distinguish ss couples from diverse gendered couples when expressing the fundamentals of marriage?

Additionally, I've already established that the term eunuch was used in Christ's time to identify homosexuals. Especially since Jesus was addressing ALL options available.

Once again, you are unable to present a sensible outline of this passage, let alone use it in your ss ceremonies.

Sad rev, and apostate.

“It's Time. . .”

Since: Jun 13

New Holland

#23093 Dec 6, 2013
WasteWater wrote:
<quoted text>
Correction: A self-hating ugly bloke in an impostor marriage.
:D

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#23094 Dec 6, 2013
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
Interesting. According to you, marriage is not based on genders, but Jesus needed to distinguish ss couples from diverse gendered couples when expressing the fundamentals of marriage?
Additionally, I've already established that the term eunuch was used in Christ's time to identify homosexuals. Especially since Jesus was addressing ALL options available.
Once again, you are unable to present a sensible outline of this passage, let alone use it in your ss ceremonies.
Sad rev, and apostate.
You say you are a lesbian. According to your own words you are in an impostor relationship. Too bad you envy your wife's sexuality.

SMIRK

Since: Jun 13

Anchorage, AK

#23095 Dec 6, 2013
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
Interesting. According to you, marriage is not based on genders, but Jesus needed to distinguish ss couples from diverse gendered couples when expressing the fundamentals of marriage?
Additionally, I've already established that the term eunuch was used in Christ's time to identify homosexuals. Especially since Jesus was addressing ALL options available.
Once again, you are unable to present a sensible outline of this passage, let alone use it in your ss ceremonies.
Sad rev, and apostate.
According to the Roman Empire the legal description of a man was very important to the establishment of law. At one time, and the law was changing often, a man had to be interested in women. If you were not interested in women than you were a natural eunuch. Physically complete with genetals but not interested.

Now some think that Jesus was married. Some think that he was not married. If Jesus was not interested in women he was considered a Eunuch by the Roman Empire.

Since: Aug 09

Location hidden

#23096 Dec 6, 2013
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
Interesting. According to you, marriage is not based on genders, but Jesus needed to distinguish ss couples from diverse gendered couples when expressing the fundamentals of marriage?
Additionally, I've already established that the term eunuch was used in Christ's time to identify homosexuals. Especially since Jesus was addressing ALL options available.
Once again, you are unable to present a sensible outline of this passage, let alone use it in your ss ceremonies.
Sad rev, and apostate.
Above, you make eight assertions.

1. That I say marriage is not gender-based.

2. That Jesus needed to distinguish ss couples from heterosexual couples.

3. That you say you have established the Greek word "eunuch" to mean exactly what Jesus, speaking in Aramaic meant by the word or words He is reported to have said.

4. That Jesus was addressing all options available, options in your mind being variations of being a "eunuch."

5. That I am unable to present a sensible outline of this scripture.

6. That I cannot use the scriptural passage in a same-sex marriage ceremony.

7. That you feel sad.

8. That my views on this subject make me an apostate, in your opinion.

*****

Well,..... LOL!!!

#1. I have never said that the institution of marriage is not gender-based. What I have said is that the marriageable couple is not necessarily made up of the iconic mating of the classically male form with the classically female form. That is only a stereotype. Marriage may be gender-based. But, that isn't necessarily what it has to be.

You and your wife are an iconoclastic example; assuming that you are telling the truth about your genetic makeup. The two of you don't fit the stereotype upon which you are insisting your marriage is based.

Just because scripture makes reference to the classically heterosexual form of the mated pair, which is the natural reproductive form, does not mean that other couples who cannot reproduce naturally cannot get married. In fact, such non-standard marriages are conducted frequently, successfully, all over the world. Again, your own marriage is, by your testimony, just such a non-stereotypical union.

Human reproduction is only one aspect of the potential benefits to be derived from marriage. And, in fact, human reproduction is NOT contingent upon people getting married.

#2. He certainly did not have to make such a distinction in his reply to the question about divorce, posed by the Pharisees.
But, of course, you try to make like He did. But, He didn't.

#3. You say so. But, that ain't necessarily so. More likely is that you are applying your own desired interpretation, conjuring it out of thin air. Very thin air. Too thin to be credible.

#4. Well, even if His statement covered "all options" of being a "eunuch", which is a claim made by you that you cannot back up with any fact, the conversation never turned to same-sex relationship or how such a relationship may become sanctified.
Does it?
No. It does not.

Kima[un]real bogusities.

(cont'd.)

Since: Aug 09

Location hidden

#23097 Dec 6, 2013
(cont'd. from #23096)

#5. The scripture is what it is.

#6. I don't have to. But, I certainly can say, "What God has put together, let no man put asunder."

If you do not understand that the love, trust and intimacy and commitment that these people have for each other is genuine, then you are simply in a backwater of denial. You can stay there howling and sulking around if you like. But, the same-sex marriage will be conducted, lawfully and spiritually, just the same.

God, our God, through Jesus Christ will joyfully recognize and accept them.

The couple will be Blessed and Sanctified and offered the opportunity to build a successful companionship together. They will be admitted to society. They will participate. They will be legitimate contributors.

And, just like everyone else, they will have their difficulties, successes and failures, their good times and bad times, and, if they are lucky, will take the opportunity and responsibility of raising a family.

#7. You don't have to feel that way. You can celebrate the union of two people in the Sight of God and take part in supporting their lives.

#8. Apostacy: abandonment of a previous loyalty.

Yes. I freely and willingly abandon the institutionalized hypocrisy and entrenched bigotry born out of ancient tribal taboo, superstition and ignorance that my Church has held for the many Centuries in supposedly following the Ministry of Jesus, the Christ.

I do this with the help, Light and Love and the Grace given to me through the Holy Spirit as a priest and disciple of Jesus Christ.

I invite you to stand upright, joining with me to do the same.

God Bless,

Rev. Ken

Since: Feb 09

Location hidden

#23099 Dec 6, 2013
Dusty Mangina wrote:
75% of divorced baptists think gay marriage is sin.
Good one! Really good! I am just not sure I can agree that divorced baptists think.

Since: Feb 09

Location hidden

#23100 Dec 6, 2013
Rosa_Winkel wrote:
<quoted text>
Not rubbing it in...but it's a beautiful summer's day today. Not too hot, a nice 23 degrees Celsius. That's after being terribly windy the last couple of days.
I'm going out now to enjoy it.
:D
We had a week of warmth and then Tuesday we had a record hard frost. Today we get some rain which will prevent more frost but then frost is back for at least another week. I found one of my avocado's completely untouched by the hard frost while the one right next to it has over 50 percent of its leaves damaged. All the citrus looks good even the lime trees. You know Americans drink 185,000 margarita's per hour?

Here we are in the dead of winter and there you are at the height of summer. Lucky you!

Since: Feb 09

Location hidden

#23101 Dec 6, 2013
WasteWater wrote:
<quoted text>
Most like to spend their time looking into the sins of others.
And that is the cause of almost all of the misery in the world.

People want to live free, happy and peaceful lives and then along comes some con-artist to stir up dissension amongst all the rubes.

The American Founding Fathers tried to create a country that would keep the busybodies from being able to influence government policy but they underestimated the power of the simple-minded; You can not trust a democratic Republic to Christians because the first thing they do is destroy it and that is what Christians have done in America since Columbus landed the first time.

But we are fighting back, knocking the white heterosexual pew warming bigots off the pedestals they hopped up on using the backs of others, with the ideas of our Founding Fathers. And we are going to win. KiMare and his fellow bigots have already lost only they are too stupid to realize it. They started loosing when the Constitution was written and while occasionally they win a battle or two they are slowly losing everything.

After they loose homosexuality, what else is left for them to loose? Prostitution maybe?

Since: Feb 09

Location hidden

#23102 Dec 6, 2013
WasteWater wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes it was.
Yes it was.

Since: Feb 09

Location hidden

#23103 Dec 6, 2013
WasteWater wrote:
<quoted text>
You say you are a lesbian. According to your own words you are in an impostor relationship. Too bad you envy your wife's sexuality.
SMIRK
His wife has a bigger dick than he does.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#23104 Dec 6, 2013
akopen wrote:
<quoted text>
According to the Roman Empire the legal description of a man was very important to the establishment of law. At one time, and the law was changing often, a man had to be interested in women. If you were not interested in women than you were a natural eunuch. Physically complete with genetals but not interested.
Now some think that Jesus was married. Some think that he was not married. If Jesus was not interested in women he was considered a Eunuch by the Roman Empire.
Who said he was not interested?

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#23105 Dec 6, 2013
RevKen wrote:
<quoted text>
1. That I say marriage is not gender-based.
*****
Well,..... LOL!!!
#1. I have never said that the institution of marriage is not gender-based. What I have said is that the marriageable couple is not necessarily made up of the iconic mating of the classically male form with the classically female form. That is only a stereotype. Marriage may be gender-based. But, that isn't necessarily what it has to be.
And the deceit and denial go downhill from there...

“Busting Kimare's”

Since: Feb 13

Clitty

#23106 Dec 6, 2013
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
Who said he was not interested?
Who said he wasn't interested in men?

Since: Aug 09

Location hidden

#23107 Dec 6, 2013
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
And the deceit and denial go downhill from there...
Bah Loney!

Your reply is deceit and denial.

I answered you point by point and that is all you can say?

Well, Halellujah!

Kima[un]real bogusity.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Wedding Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News What would Jesus say about same-sex marriage? (Jul '15) 3 min Freedomofexpression 8,528
News Catholic Church threatens to fire gay teachers ... 47 min NOM s Waffle House 18
News Elvis Is Alive and Well In Las Vegas 15 hr Dead and Drugged 2
News Churches threaten to dismiss staff who wed same... 16 hr South Knox Hombre 7
News Muslim cleric tells Australians: 'Husbands shou... (Jan '09) 19 hr Say NO to islam 65
News Our recommendation: Springboro voters should sa... (Feb '08) Aug 19 huh 32,016
News ACT's first same sex newlyweds worry postal sur... Aug 19 Carmine 1
More from around the web