Homosexuality and the Bible

Aug 15, 2011 | Posted by: Selecia Jones- JAX FL | Full story: www.smh.com.au

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.

Comments (Page 1,114)

Showing posts 22,261 - 22,280 of24,330
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:

Since: Jun 13

Fairbanks, AK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#24604
Jan 24, 2014
 
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
Yeah, it does.
So a Christian can't be in the government?
Good idea!2895

“... from a ...”

Since: Mar 09

GREAT HEIGHT

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#24605
Jan 24, 2014
 

Judged:

1

1

1

RevKen wrote:
<quoted text>
Spfffft!... flying coffee!
An excellent post!
But, the hilarity of the analogy also brings a peculiar sobriety in thought.
There is a principle in the Teachings of Jesus that is routinely overlooked, even deliberately dismissed.
That is, that the Bride must be prepared for the Bridegroom and must be ready and vigilant.
If the Bridegroom comes and the Bride is found wanting, that is, in the parable, not having her lamp trimmed and also running short of oil, she gets left behind.
So, the habits and patterns that a person carries, which habits and patterns are a matter of self-discipline and yet, are inherited to a greater or lesser degree through the "sins" of the progenitors," do play a part in the readyness of the Bride.
Likewise, scripture, tradition and cultural morality and history do play a part in shaping the conduct of society.
The individual, the "vigilant Bride," must conduct her vigilance in this context.
Rev. Ken
Now review your traditional gentile interpretation in light of the Jewish understanding of "bride", and how the Judean and Galilean listeners would have heard it: the Sabbath.

N.B. the "wedding feast" is celebratory meal at sunset at the end of Sabbath.

The Lord of the Sabbath is not, as is often imagined by Ger (especially Germanic Ger. lol), a purely Apollonian deity, but also incorporates a good deal of Dionysian elements as well.(see: 1 Samuel 19:18--24)

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#24606
Jan 24, 2014
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Karen wrote:
<quoted text>
Of course a Christian can be in government. Or a Jew. Or a Muslim. Or a Buddhist. Or an atheist. And on. And on.
Are you deliberately attempting to twist my words? Or is English your second language?
I was very specific in my posting. My thoughts are really quite cogent
"I don't think religious dialog, language, doctrine need be in the government."

So a Christian can't speak about their faith.

They must censor their thoughts, morals and beliefs from any participation in the government?

Who else must compartmentalize their belief system?

Do you understand how participation in government crosses over into many aspects of life?

Since: Dec 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#24607
Jan 24, 2014
 
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
No. Not remotely quite a few.
30 for Sweden. Israel the country only has 12.
KiMare wrote:
They sit today surrounded by huge nations who want to destroy them. They have kicked ass numerous times.
They've kicked ass of other minor countries. Israel has never been a top 10 country in the world at any point.
KiMare wrote:
Where did I limit Judaism to OT sacrificial Law. You clearly are ignorant of Judaism in it's many forms and mistake cultural Jews for religious Jews.
You didn't, and neither did I, but that was an important component of ancient Judaism, which has been discard. Much of it has been discarded because it is recognized and primitive and barbaric.
KiMare wrote:
Come on punk, man up with a real argument.
I've destroyed you yet again. Poor child.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#24608
Jan 24, 2014
 

Judged:

2

2

2

The_Box wrote:
<quoted text>
30 for Sweden. Israel the country only has 12.
<quoted text>
They've kicked ass of other minor countries. Israel has never been a top 10 country in the world at any point.
<quoted text>
You didn't, and neither did I, but that was an important component of ancient Judaism, which has been discard. Much of it has been discarded because it is recognized and primitive and barbaric.
<quoted text>
I've destroyed you yet again. Poor child.
We were talking about a culture, not a country. No culture exceeds the Jewish.

Oh please, for it's size, there is no comparison. And this in an incredibly hostile environment.

You did attempt to do so. The Law not been discarded by religious Jews.

That's funny, you must have a different meaning for the word 'destroyed'. Like you do for marriage. Doesn't change reality.

Near senile old jackass kicked yours punk.
Karen

Lake Zurich, IL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#24609
Jan 24, 2014
 

Judged:

2

1

You can twist your silliness any which way you wish. I have made my thoughts clear. Should you want not to accept them, so be it. No. Religion, religious faith, religious conviction, religious proselytizing most certainly does not belong in the administration of government. And absolutely not in the evangelizing manner in which you are attempting to argue for. Government must be religiously neutral. Period. It's you're right to disagree, but this horse has been beaten to death with your insistence that I must somehow acquiesce to your point of view. Enough of your frustrating annoyances. I'm not changing my mind just you can have your little victory. In plain language that even you should understand.- we agree to disagree. And leave it at that.

“... from a ...”

Since: Mar 09

GREAT HEIGHT

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#24610
Jan 24, 2014
 
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
We were talking about a culture, not a country. No culture exceeds the Jewish.
Oh please, for it's size, there is no comparison. And this in an incredibly hostile environment.
You did attempt to do so. The Law not been discarded by religious Jews.
That's funny, you must have a different meaning for the word 'destroyed'. Like you do for marriage. Doesn't change reality.
Near senile old jackass kicked yours punk.
Jewish vs Greeks. Hmmm.

Saul certainly had little trouble thoroughly conflating them into a globe-riding heresy.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#24611
Jan 25, 2014
 
Karen wrote:
You can twist your silliness any which way you wish. I have made my thoughts clear. Should you want not to accept them, so be it. No. Religion, religious faith, religious conviction, religious proselytizing most certainly does not belong in the administration of government. And absolutely not in the evangelizing manner in which you are attempting to argue for. Government must be religiously neutral. Period. It's you're right to disagree, but this horse has been beaten to death with your insistence that I must somehow acquiesce to your point of view. Enough of your frustrating annoyances. I'm not changing my mind just you can have your little victory. In plain language that even you should understand.- we agree to disagree. And leave it at that.
I would suggest that you are as confused about the First Amendment as you are about sexuality and marriage.

From George Washington's First Inaugural Address;

"Such being the impressions under which I have, in obedience to the public summons, repaired to the present station, it would be peculiarly improper to omit in this first official act my fervent supplications to that Almighty Being who rules over the universe, who presides in the councils of nations, and whose providential aids can supply every human defect, that His benediction may consecrate to the liberties and happiness of the people of the United States a Government instituted by themselves for these essential purposes, and may enable every instrument employed in its administration to execute with success the functions allotted to his charge. In tendering this homage to the Great Author of every public and private good, I assure myself that it expresses your sentiments not less than my own, nor those of my fellow-citizens at large less than either. No people can be bound to acknowledge and adore the Invisible Hand which conducts the affairs of men more than those of the United States. Every step by which they have advanced to the character of an independent nation seems to have been distinguished by some token of providential agency; and in the important revolution just accomplished in the system of their united government the tranquil deliberations and voluntary consent of so many distinct communities from which the event has resulted can not be compared with the means by which most governments have been established without some return of pious gratitude, along with an humble anticipation of the future blessings which the past seem to presage."

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#24612
Jan 25, 2014
 
snyper wrote:
<quoted text>
Jewish vs Greeks. Hmmm.
Saul certainly had little trouble thoroughly conflating them into a globe-riding heresy.
What does your theology have to do with my post?

“... from a ...”

Since: Mar 09

GREAT HEIGHT

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#24613
Jan 25, 2014
 

Judged:

2

2

2

KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
I would suggest that you are as confused about the First Amendment as you are about sexuality and marriage.
From George Washington's First Inaugural Address;
"Such being the impressions under which I have, in obedience to the public summons, repaired to the present station, it would be peculiarly improper to omit in this first official act my fervent supplications to that Almighty Being who rules over the universe, who presides in the councils of nations, and whose providential aids can supply every human defect, that His benediction may consecrate to the liberties and happiness of the people of the United States a Government instituted by themselves for these essential purposes, and may enable every instrument employed in its administration to execute with success the functions allotted to his charge. In tendering this homage to the Great Author of every public and private good, I assure myself that it expresses your sentiments not less than my own, nor those of my fellow-citizens at large less than either. No people can be bound to acknowledge and adore the Invisible Hand which conducts the affairs of men more than those of the United States. Every step by which they have advanced to the character of an independent nation seems to have been distinguished by some token of providential agency; and in the important revolution just accomplished in the system of their united government the tranquil deliberations and voluntary consent of so many distinct communities from which the event has resulted can not be compared with the means by which most governments have been established without some return of pious gratitude, along with an humble anticipation of the future blessings which the past seem to presage."
Did everybody else note the Masonic Deist phraseology in all that?

Almost all he left out was reference to the "widow's son". lol
Karen

Lake Zurich, IL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#24614
Jan 25, 2014
 

Judged:

2

1

KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
I would suggest that you are as confused about the First Amendment as you are about sexuality and marriage.
From George Washington's First Inaugural Address;
"Such being the impressions under which I have, in obedience to the public summons, repaired to the present station, it would be peculiarly improper to omit in this first official act my fervent supplications to that Almighty Being who rules over the universe, who presides in the councils of nations, and whose providential aids can supply every human defect, that His benediction may consecrate to the liberties and happiness of the people of the United States a Government instituted by themselves for these essential purposes, and may enable every instrument employed in its administration to execute with success the functions allotted to his charge. In tendering this homage to the Great Author of every public and private good, I assure myself that it expresses your sentiments not less than my own, nor those of my fellow-citizens at large less than either. No people can be bound to acknowledge and adore the Invisible Hand which conducts the affairs of men more than those of the United States. Every step by which they have advanced to the character of an independent nation seems to have been distinguished by some token of providential agency; and in the important revolution just accomplished in the system of their united government the tranquil deliberations and voluntary consent of so many distinct communities from which the event has resulted can not be compared with the means by which most governments have been established without some return of pious gratitude, along with an humble anticipation of the future blessings which the past seem to presage."
I've made my statement. I gave you my answers. Let it go.
You really are a rather tiresome individual. Just piss off.

“THERE IS NO GOD”

Since: Feb 09

Northern California

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#24615
Jan 25, 2014
 

Judged:

1

Karen wrote:
<quoted text>
My complaint, in a nutshell, is the constant insinuation of religious or biblical laws, tenets, etc., into the political arena, on the basis of some moral imperative. Be it marriage, abortion, homosexuality, whatever. The more religion stays out of the political theater, the better for all.
The late Barry Goldwater warned the Republican Party about its ever increasing alliance with the religious right. I think his words of warning have come to fruition, and that party is none the better for it. I have no problem discussing these types of matters on a purely philosophical basis. My objection is when discussion becomes implementation of dogma through law.
We could talk about all the unconstitutional religious laws that are placed on the law books that were put there by religious fanatics and should be immediately removed. As should all the officials who supported them because anyone who does such a thing is unfit for public office.

I would like the death penalty used for religious fanatics who get unconstitutional religious laws put onto our law books.

“THERE IS NO GOD”

Since: Feb 09

Northern California

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#24616
Jan 25, 2014
 

Judged:

2

2

2

KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
Dang punk, you are such an idiot.
I can only imagine what a disappointment you are to so many...
pot/kettle

“THERE IS NO GOD”

Since: Feb 09

Northern California

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#24617
Jan 25, 2014
 
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
So you assert that religious language and thought is to be censored from the public arena?
If you had read what she said KiMare you would not have written that stupid question. Clearly the problem is with turning your religious BS into unconstitutional laws and using the power of the government to enforce them.

Laws against prostitution, pologamy, gay marriage are all unconstitutional laws and everyone supporting these bad, unfair, unjust laws deserves to be removed from office because they have violated their oath to uphold the Constitution and are unfit to remain in office.

“THERE IS NO GOD”

Since: Feb 09

Northern California

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#24618
Jan 25, 2014
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Unconstitutional Official Acts

16 Am Jur 2d, Sec 177 late 2d, Sec 256:

The general misconception is that any statute passed by legislators bearing the appearance of law constitutes the law of the land. The U.S. Constitution is the supreme law of the land, and any statute, to be valid, must be In agreement. It is impossible for both the Constitution and a law violating it to be valid; one must prevail. This is succinctly stated as follows:

The General rule is that an unconstitutional statute, though having the form and name of law is in reality no law, but is wholly void, and ineffective for any purpose; since unconstitutionality dates from the time of it's enactment and not merely from the date of the decision so branding it. An unconstitutional law, in legal contemplation, is as inoperative as if it had never been passed. Such a statute leaves the question that it purports to settle just as it would be had the statute not been enacted.

Since an unconstitutional law is void, the general principles follow that it imposes no duties, confers no rights, creates no office, bestows no power or authority on anyone, affords no protection, and justifies no acts performed under it.....

A void act cannot be legally consistent with a valid one. An unconstitutional law cannot operate to supersede any existing valid law. Indeed, insofar as a statute runs counter to the fundamental law of the lend, it is superseded thereby.

No one Is bound to obey an unconstitutional law and no courts are bound to enforce it.

Jon Roland:

Strictly speaking, an unconstitutional statute is not a "law", and should not be called a "law", even if it is sustained by a court, for a finding that a statute or other official act is constitutional does not make it so, or confer any authority to anyone to enforce it.

All citizens and legal residents of the United States, by their presence on the territory of the United States, are subject to the militia duty, the duty of the social compact that creates the society, which requires that each, alone and in concert with others, not only obey the Constitution and constitutional official acts, but help enforce them, if necessary, at the risk of one's life.

Any unconstitutional act of an official will at least be a violation of the oath of that official to execute the duties of his office, and therefore grounds for his removal from office. No official immunity or privileges of rank or position survive the commission of unlawful acts. If it violates the rights of individuals, it is also likely to be a crime, and the militia duty obligates anyone aware of such a violation to investigate it, gather evidence for a prosecution, make an arrest, and if necessary, seek an indictment from a grand jury, and if one is obtained, prosecute the offender in a court of law.

“THERE IS NO GOD”

Since: Feb 09

Northern California

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#24619
Jan 25, 2014
 
Karen wrote:
The public arena encompasses a very large area.
I don't think religious dialog, language, doctrine need be in the government. The official policy of the U.S. government is presumed to be neutral toward religion. Just look to theocracies around the world to see the detrimental effect of mixing religion and politics. The U.S. is too pluralistic a nation, too diverse, to alter that perceived neutrality.
One only has to imagine, government policies or laws set or approved by the likes of a Jerry Falwell, a Jimmy Swaggart, or a Jim Bakker, or a Mike Huckabee , or Catholic bishops to realize the negative effect that would have on the separation of Church and State.
Religion is protected by that very separation. Eliminate the separation and nothing is protected. I'm an atheist, and yet I want religion protected so other rights I have and value are equally protected.
Outside of government, we can have all the discussion you like.
You were very clear about that. KiMare is dishonest and tried to twist your words so he could claim you wrote something stupid. He can't win the debate honestly so he resorts to this kind of Christian deceitfulness.

PS. I would add Mel Gibson to your list of biblicists who would destroy our Republic.

“THERE IS NO GOD”

Since: Feb 09

Northern California

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#24620
Jan 25, 2014
 
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
Yeah, it does.
So a Christian can't be in the government?
Christians can't be trusted in the Government. They can not be trusted to preserve our Constitution because it is their goal not to protect but to destroy by inserting Christianity everywhere they can into all our laws.

You can not let someone hellbent on destroying what our Founding Fathers gave us be in charge of protecting the very thing they wish to destroy.

Christians are just too deceptive, deceitful and dishonest to be trusted in public office. You just can't give a Republic to a Christian with out them destroying what is good about it.

“THERE IS NO GOD”

Since: Feb 09

Northern California

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#24621
Jan 25, 2014
 
Karen: Of course a Christian can be in government.

ALAN: Of course the first thing they do is try to establish Christ-insanity as the law of the land.

Karen: Or a Jew. Or a Muslim. Or a Buddhist. Or an atheist. And on. And on.

ALAN: I believe it is time for another gay President.

Karen: Are you deliberately attempting to twist my words?

ALAN: BINGO! He sure is.

Karen: Or is English your second language?

ALAN: Yes, lying is his first language.

Karen: I was very specific in my posting. My thoughts are really quite cogent

ALAN: That means it takes longer for Kimare to twist your words.

“THERE IS NO GOD”

Since: Feb 09

Northern California

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#24622
Jan 25, 2014
 
"I don't think religious dialog, language, doctrine need be in the government."
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
So a Christian can't speak about their faith.
They must censor their thoughts, morals and beliefs from any participation in the government?
Not at work. If you are an employee of the government you were hired to serve all of the people of the USA. Christians only serve the interests of Christians and they do not do what is best for everyone. Of course in all fairness most all of our officials are constitution destroying criminals.

Because of unconstitutional laws placed on businesses you can not speak about your faith if you are the owner of a bakery and you do not want to bake a gay wedding cake.

In private business you should be allowed to express your ignorance and bigotry, but not if you are in the government or work for a government regulated public utility. You must censor your ignorance and bigotry while at work if you were elected to public office or are hired to work for those who were elected.

That protects you from Muslims and Jews as much as it protect us normal people from you Christ-insanity-ists.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#24623
Jan 25, 2014
 
Karen wrote:
<quoted text>
I've made my statement. I gave you my answers. Let it go.
You really are a rather tiresome individual. Just piss off.
Damn, I laughed so hard, now I have to pee.

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Showing posts 22,261 - 22,280 of24,330
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:
Type in your comments below
Name
(appears on your post)
Comments
Characters left: 4000
Type the numbers you see in the image on the right:

Please note by clicking on "Post Comment" 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.

•••
•••
•••
•••