Homosexuality and the Bible

Homosexuality and the Bible

There are 36039 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: Jun 13

Fairbanks, AK

#23843 Jan 2, 2014
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
Do you read what you post?
"Such destructive opinions of heretical sects bring loss of faith in Christ, contempt for the way of salvation (cf. 2 Pt 2:21), and immorality."
I bring no new doctrine into the faith. In fact, as just stated, I simply point out how YOUR doctrine does exactly what YOU posted in conflict with the overt message of the passage.
And yes, I related procreation to fruit. Human fruit to be exact. You have a problem with that?
And yes, you can have a conversation with opinions. That is exactly what we are doing. The only conflict is, we disagree on whose opinion to respect.
By the way, your attack on a woman is the fruit of your thinking.
I did not attack women. Your confused opinion. It is your faith that is in question as it is all Christianity. Well, not all, some get it. My exegesis is about the correctness of Christian faith. If you notice, I've taken my documentation from sound documentation.

Yes, you did take out of context and put into the passage your own opinion considering procreation as the meaning of the passage. You presented no documentation in regards to your opinion. Others are supposed to believe you just because you say so?

The difference between your opinion and my opinion is that I document!

Respect comes to those that are credible.

Since: Jun 13

Fairbanks, AK

#23844 Jan 2, 2014
Reverend Alan wrote:
<quoted text>
Assuming that such a being actually exists. And we have no proof for the existence of this being. What we do have is the Bible and a lot of stupid and ignorant people claiming that a God they invented in their own image wrote it.
Man does not know himself and rarely do we find an individual interested in the inward journey necessary to find out. The Bible tells us the kingdom of God is within, and few if any of our Bible Thumpers want to try to understand what that means. And even fewer are willing to make the efforts necessary for the exploration.
How many times in a day do you even know you exist?
Agreed.

Since: Jun 13

Fairbanks, AK

#23845 Jan 2, 2014
Reverend Alan wrote:
<quoted text>
You can't know this God you allege when you do not even know yourself. You live in a creation that arose on the surface of the planet earth. Maybe you should start with something a little closer to home, like yourself.
I've stated that I, nor anyone else could possibly know God. To state that there is a God is faith. No knowledge, no belief necessary to have faith. The difference between faith and belief is belief requires knowledge. So, man's perception is knowledge just as the Bible is man's perception. Given Biblical faith, or Christian faith neither is proof of anything but human relations. Any comment I make is about the Bible or Christian thought comes from documented scholarly research. I do not pretend to speak for God any more than I expect others to accept what I comment on.

I challenge the likes of every Biblicist.

What you question me on is far more advanced thinking, maybe even mysticism. I've stated that I can see this given what you have introduced me to. I may even scratch the very surface of what you impart to me but I am not invested in it as you are. I am not putting what you believe down. To comprehend fully would require much concentration which I do not have the time for nor desire to seek that which you preach.
Xstain Mullah Fricassee

Philadelphia, PA

#23846 Jan 2, 2014
RevKen wrote:
<quoted text>
An "Atheist" Teaches the Gospel of Christ.
Could you fundie freeeks at least get the (generally recognized, main) Gospels to agree with one another on the basic facts?

Since the whole thing is infallible....

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#23847 Jan 2, 2014
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
I said, specifically, "dress and act like a man". You know that, but lie about it. Moreover, you now lie about what you insinuated.
I would suggest you look up mating behavior, and try some simple common sense applied to my question. To help your defensive bigotry, read some butch blogs and see how butch lesbians talk about themselves.
You mean act like comes naturally to her without regard for culturally-induced conventions?

You really think that mannerisms and the cloths that we drape on ourselves are naturally gender-specific?

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#23848 Jan 2, 2014
akopen wrote:
<quoted text>
My understanding is that God does not influence mankind in any way whatsoever because God's creation in our minds is perfect. How can a perfect God change what God created, perfect and as was intended? For a God to hate goes against man's perception of a loving God. And then there is an understanding that God is not so much a loving God as God is a suffering God. What a mixed bag of thoughts. Man really does not know God after all. Biblical stories, interpretations and all are man's perception. My point is as useless as anybodies. I'd have to write a book to fully explain God's love and hate relationship with mankind.
" ... God's creation in our minds is perfect ... "

Huh?

Getting stuck in Aristotelianism again, are we?

Since: Feb 09

Location hidden

#23849 Jan 2, 2014
RevKen wrote:
<quoted text>
An "Atheist" Teaches the Gospel of Christ.
Technically I am an Anti-theist because I affirm that there is no such thing as God, a supernatural being who brought the Universe into existence and wrote the Bible.

The BIble can be "understood" at 7 different levels as there are 7 different level of understanding possible for the human being. It's a long story that one has to verify for oneself, not from being told but from understand what you are and what your place is in the Universe. Christians have it backwards, the Universe does not exist for humanity, humanity exists for the Universe.

There is something only triuned beings can do in the Universe, something the Universe needs and some of the stories in the Bible are instructions about how to become what the Universe needs you to become so that you can provide what the universe needs.

One of the reasons that you and KiMare will NEVER understand each other is that you each "understand" at different levels. All of the first three levels are all equally mechanical and literal. Clearly KiMare "understand" at the first level, you at the second, and akopen at the third. None is better than the other, all are equally missing the bigger picture.

It is impossible to understand the psychology of man's possible evolution with out the higher parts of the neocortex penetrating down into the body, feelings and mind: because the body feelings and mind do not work in harmony with one another; you are not one being but three beings each filled with billions of contradictory little ego i's.

Since: Feb 09

Location hidden

#23850 Jan 2, 2014
Some Christians just won't stop using the gay card to keep the money coming in.

Franklin Graham, the son of evangelist Billy Graham, said during a television interview aired Sunday that Pope Francis, who appears to have a more accepting view of gays, is not the judge on homosexuality, but God is and He says it's a sin.

"I want to warn people: I think the pope is right when he says he's not the judge," Graham said on NBC's "Meet the Press" on Sunday. "He's not the judge. God is the judge."

Graham, president of the Billy Graham Evangelistic Association, said this after he was asked about the pope's views on homosexuality. Francis made headlines earlier this year when he said, "If a person is gay and seeks God and has goodwill, who am I to judge them?"

Graham was asked, "Would there be a shift for you?"

"God would have to shift, and God doesn't. God's word is the same yesterday, today, and a million years from now. It's a sin," Graham replied. "To wink at sin, to tell somebody that it's OK? I know the consequences of what will happen one day when they have to stand before God," he added.

However, many believe the comments of the pope were taken out of context.

Since: Feb 09

Location hidden

#23851 Jan 2, 2014
Graham: " God's word is the same yesterday, today, and a million years from now."

For hundreds of years biblicists have been lecturing people on the importance of adhering to the Bible's teachings on ethics, manners, and morality. They quote Jesus and Paul profusely, with a liberal sprinkling of Old Testament moralisms. The problem with their approach lies not only in an oft-noted failure to practice what they preach, but an equally pronounced tendency to ignore what the Bible itself, preaches. Biblicists practice what can only be described as "selective morality". What they like, they expound; what they don't like, they ignore, even though the validity or strength of one is no less than that of the other. That which is palatable and acceptable is supposedly applicable to all; while that which is obnoxious, inconvenient, or self-denying is only applicable to those addresed 2,000 years ago. They enjoy quoting the Ten Commandments, the Sermon on the Mount, and some of Paul's preachings, for example, but don't pretend to heed other, equally valid, maxims. The following examples show the selectivity of apologetic morality.

First, a true follower of Jesus would have to be extremely poor--as poor as the proverbial churchmouse. The Bible makes this quite clear:

"...none of you can be my disciple unless he gives up everything he has" Luke 14:33
"If you want to be perfect, go and sell all you have and give the money to the poor and you will have riches in heaven" Matt. 19:21
"Sell your possessions and give alms" Luke 12:33
"But give what is in your cups and plates to the poor, and everything will be clean for you" Luke 11:41
"Lay not up for yourselves treasures upon earth, where moth and rust doth corrupt,.... But lay up for yourselves treasures in heaven.... for where your treasure is, there will your heart be also" Matt. 6:19-21
"How hardly shall they that have riches enter to the kingdom of God" Mark 10:23
"Truly, I say to you, it will be hard for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven. Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God" Matt. 19:23-24
A certain ruler told Jesus that he had obeyed all the commandments from his youth up. But, Jesus said, "Yet lackest thou one thing: sell all that thou hast, and distribute unto the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come, follow me" Luke 18:22, Mark 10:21

Paul said, "For his sake I have suffered the loss of all things and count them as refuse, in order that I may gain Christ" (Phil. 3:8 RSV)

John 14:15 KJV, "If ye love me, keep my commandments."

Imagine Billy Graham, Oral Roberts, Jerry Falwell, Jimmy Swaggart, Rex Humbard, Robert Schuller, Herbert W. Armstrong and thousands of other wealthy religious leaders heeding such pronoucements!

It's much easier, and far less painful, to rationalize away clear-cut statements than surrender great wealth because of Biblical injunctions. Paul said, "And having food and raiment let us be therewith content" (1 Tim. 6:8).

to be continued

Since: Feb 09

Location hidden

#23852 Jan 2, 2014
continued

The lavish personal wealth of many Christians bears witness to their avoidance of these biblical teachings, Luke 3:11, which says, "who has two coats, let him share with him who has none; and he who has food, let him do like-wise." One can only speculate as to the number of coats Christians have in their closets. Jesus said, "Give to him who asketh thee, and from him that would borrow of thee turn not thou away" (Matt. 5:42). Asking any modern Christian individual of any Christian denomination for a sizable portion of his or its wealth would be an exercise in futility. How many biblicists attempt to obey the biblical precept which says, "and from him who takes away your coat do not withhold even your shirt. Give to every one who begs from you; and of him who takes away your goods do not ask them again" (Luke 6:29-30 RSV)? They avoid Matt. 5:40, which says, "And if any man will sue thee at the law, and take away thy coat, let him also have thy cloak." Apologists don't mind quoting the prior verse (Matt. 5:39) about turning the other cheek, because it concerns attitudes and is not concrete; no direct physical denial is involved. Turning one's cheek is far less painful and tangible than turning in dollars. The former is more nebulous and subject to interpretation. Jesus commissioned his twelve disciples to, "provide neither gold nor silver, nor brass in your purses, nor scrip for your journey, neither two coats, neither shoes, not yet staves, for the workman is worthy of his meat" (Matt. 10:9-10). If these were the morally right procedures for the disciples of Christ 2,000 years ago, then they should have some relevance to his disciples of today. But the entourage and wealth accompanying any well-known evangelist on his periodic journeys highlights the inconsistency involved.

Early Christian groups even practiced a form of communal ownership of property. "And all that believed were together, and had all things common; and sold their possessions and goods and parted them to all men, as every man had need" (Acts 2:44-45, also note Acts 4:34-37). Yet, except for a few isolated communities, today's biblicists preach the opposite.

In summary, it's not enough to avoid the accumulation of wealth; one must actively seek to eliminate whatever property may come into one's possession.(See also: Acts 20:35, Rom. 12:13, Col. 3:2, Matt. 6:24). In so far as wealth and property are concerned, Christian monks, ascetics, and some factions of the Amish, for example, are far closer to biblical teachings than any of the well-known clergymen or denominations of today. While engaged in dialogue with a minister several years ago, I noted that his Lincoln Continental parked nearby was wholly inconsistent with biblical tenets. After offering the usual apologetic rationalizations (e.g., I live a frugal life and the Bible does not require me to give away what I own), he denounced my motives and left. Neither of his excuses was accurate.

Since: Feb 09

Location hidden

#23853 Jan 2, 2014
akopen wrote:
<quoted text>
I've stated that I, nor anyone else could possibly know God. To state that there is a God is faith. No knowledge, no belief necessary to have faith. The difference between faith and belief is belief requires knowledge. So, man's perception is knowledge just as the Bible is man's perception. Given Biblical faith, or Christian faith neither is proof of anything but human relations. Any comment I make is about the Bible or Christian thought comes from documented scholarly research. I do not pretend to speak for God any more than I expect others to accept what I comment on.
I challenge the likes of every Biblicist.
What you question me on is far more advanced thinking, maybe even mysticism. I've stated that I can see this given what you have introduced me to. I may even scratch the very surface of what you impart to me but I am not invested in it as you are. I am not putting what you believe down. To comprehend fully would require much concentration which I do not have the time for nor desire to seek that which you preach.
"Lay not up for yourselves treasures upon earth, where moth and rust doth corrupt,.... But lay up for yourselves treasures in heaven.... for where your treasure is, there will your heart be also" Matt. 6:19-21

Let's see where is that verse about casting pearls before swine?

Since: Feb 09

Location hidden

#23854 Jan 2, 2014
Xstain Mullah Fricassee wrote:
<quoted text>
Could you fundie freeeks at least get the (generally recognized, main) Gospels to agree with one another on the basic facts?
Since the whole thing is infallible....
RevKen is not a "fundie Freeeks". KiMare is. But I agree, why use the Bible when it is flawed from cover to cover with contradictions.

Since: Feb 09

Location hidden

#23855 Jan 2, 2014
oops

-For hundreds of years biblicists have been lecturing people on the importance of adhering to the Bible's teachings on ethics, manners, and morality. They quote Jesus and Paul profusely, with a liberal sprinkling of Old Testament moralisms. The problem with their approach lies not only in an oft-noted failure to practice what they preach, but an equally pronounced tendency to ignore what the Bible itself, preaches. Biblicists practice what can only be described as "selective morality". What they like, they expound; what they don't like, they ignore, even though the validity or strength of one is no less than that of the other. That which is palatable and acceptable is supposedly applicable to all; while that which is obnoxious, inconvenient, or self-denying is only applicable to those addresed 2,000 years ago. They enjoy quoting the Ten Commandments, the Sermon on the Mount, and some of Paul's preachings, for example, but don't pretend to heed other, equally valid, maxims. The following examples show the selectivity of apologetic morality.

First, a true follower of Jesus would have to be extremely poor--as poor as the proverbial churchmouse. The Bible makes this quite clear:

"...none of you can be my disciple unless he gives up everything he has" Luke 14:33
"If you want to be perfect, go and sell all you have and give the money to the poor and you will have riches in heaven" Matt. 19:21
"Sell your possessions and give alms" Luke 12:33
"But give what is in your cups and plates to the poor, and everything will be clean for you" Luke 11:41
"Lay not up for yourselves treasures upon earth, where moth and rust doth corrupt,.... But lay up for yourselves treasures in heaven.... for where your treasure is, there will your heart be also" Matt. 6:19-21
"How hardly shall they that have riches enter to the kingdom of God" Mark 10:23
"Truly, I say to you, it will be hard for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven. Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God" Matt. 19:23-24
A certain ruler told Jesus that he had obeyed all the commandments from his youth up. But, Jesus said, "Yet lackest thou one thing: sell all that thou hast, and distribute unto the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come, follow me" Luke 18:22, Mark 10:21

Paul said, "For his sake I have suffered the loss of all things and count them as refuse, in order that I may gain Christ" (Phil. 3:8 RSV)

John 14:15 KJV, "If ye love me, keep my commandments."

Imagine Billy Graham, Oral Roberts, Jerry Falwell, Jimmy Swaggart, Rex Humbard, Robert Schuller, Herbert W. Armstrong and thousands of other wealthy religious leaders heeding such pronoucements!

It's much easier, and far less painful, to rationalize away clear-cut statements than surrender great wealth because of Biblical injunctions. Paul said, "And having food and raiment let us be therewith content" (1 Tim. 6:8).

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#23856 Jan 2, 2014
snyper wrote:
<quoted text>
You mean act like comes naturally to her without regard for culturally-induced conventions?
You really think that mannerisms and the cloths that we drape on ourselves are naturally gender-specific?
Is dress within a culture gender specific?

Why?

You are avoiding the issue.

Smile.

Since: Feb 09

Location hidden

#23857 Jan 2, 2014
I was just informed that G-d is short for God damned.

Since: Jun 13

Fairbanks, AK

#23858 Jan 2, 2014
snyper wrote:
<quoted text>
" ... God's creation in our minds is perfect ... "
Huh?
Getting stuck in Aristotelianism again, are we?
I speak according to what Christian thought comes from not what is. Aristotelianism or Platoism, take your pick. Is there any other philosophy that was the basis of all Christian thought?

Since: Jun 13

Fairbanks, AK

#23859 Jan 2, 2014
Xstain Mullah Fricassee wrote:
<quoted text>
Could you fundie freeeks at least get the (generally recognized, main) Gospels to agree with one another on the basic facts?
Since the whole thing is infallible....
Not every Christian believes that the Bible is infallible. With that said, one must use all the tools of hermeneutics to learn what the Bible says.
Xstain Mullah Fricassee

Philadelphia, PA

#23860 Jan 2, 2014
Reverend Alan wrote:
I was just informed that G-d is short for God damned.
Is that internet snark?

"G-d" is a common variant for those, usually little "c" conservative Jewish, who believe it is important not to write the name of their Abrahamic gawd.
Xstain Mullah Fricassee

Philadelphia, PA

#23861 Jan 2, 2014
akopen wrote:
<quoted text>
Not every Christian believes that the Bible is infallible. With that said, one must use all the tools of hermeneutics to learn what the Bible says.
The buybull says exactly what you or others want it to say, quite apparently.

I think the use of the buybull as anything other than poetry is to confound those Christians who are xstain fundie freeeks with the many gaps, versions, languages, translations, disputed books, selective emphases, illogical events and internal contradictions of the buybull.

Since: Jun 13

Fairbanks, AK

#23862 Jan 2, 2014
Xstain Mullah Fricassee wrote:
<quoted text>
The buybull says exactly what you or others want it to say, quite apparently.
I think the use of the buybull as anything other than poetry is to confound those Christians who are xstain fundie freeeks with the many gaps, versions, languages, translations, disputed books, selective emphases, illogical events and internal contradictions of the buybull.
Give the man a cigar. He nailed it.

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 Woman breaks up with fiance 3 weeks before wedd... 3 hr andet1987 6
News Molly Olson: Change Minnesota law to support 'e... (Feb '11) 19 hr QBY 26
News 4 responses to Tim Kaine's claims about Genesis... 22 hr david traversa 1
News Religious Voters May Lean Republican, But Feel ... Sun BabyDoll 4
[Guide] Funny maid of honor speech (Sep '14) Sun reza_khafan 183
News Tens of thousands march against same-sex marria... Sat david traversa 1
News PHOTOS: For Indonesiaa s Buginese community, tr... (Aug '15) Sat aditya 2
More from around the web