Homosexuality and the Bible

Homosexuality and the Bible

There are 36055 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

Anchorage, AK

#26366 Mar 25, 2014
No Surprise wrote:
<quoted text>
"I am an ordained priest in the very line of Spirit that became manifest in the Levites."
Are you Jewish or not?
If you're Jewish, you have in the above described yourself as many Christians describe themselves today, the new pick and chose of what commandments they'll follow and which they won't generation and to them God's okay with that.
Neither in the Torah or in the Christian Bible was it written that followers had the option to "pick and chose" concerning those laws and commandments when becoming a follower.
The problem is your determination to decide what those laws mean. Your personal god does not count. If ancient Hebrew says that the modern day interpretation of Leviticus 18:22 is abhorence or disgust and God is not the one that is disgusted then 22 is not God's command. But if you insist that 22 was a command of God you must show that it was. If not you need to reexamine your Christian faith.

Since: Jun 13

Anchorage, AK

#26367 Mar 25, 2014
No Surprise wrote:
<quoted text>
Ahhh, that's a weak point. Neither does it address animal sex, incest, marriage, shacking up, owning slaves, having multiple spouses etc :)
They did not get it then and they don't get it now.

Cultic practices were not commandments.

“Good day to you!”

Since: Oct 08

Earth

#26368 Mar 25, 2014
akopen wrote:
<quoted text>
The problem is your determination to decide what those laws mean. Your personal god does not count. If ancient Hebrew says that the modern day interpretation of Leviticus 18:22 is abhorence or disgust and God is not the one that is disgusted then 22 is not God's command. But if you insist that 22 was a command of God you must show that it was. If not you need to reexamine your Christian faith.
I'll disagree of what you say the problem is about and what the laws mean.
The actual problem is both Jews and Christians today are applying themselves to religious codes of conduct/practices that were written/preached among people that lived 2000 years ago. And their having a real problem doing that.
The fact is that not all codes of conduct/practices from 2000 years ago can be followed today as they were followed then as our laws are so drastically different than theirs. Our social customs and traditions are different also.
The problem doesn't really lay in their meaning but in deciding which of those laws should be followed and which can't be obviously followed because of modern laws.

Since: Jun 13

Anchorage, AK

#26369 Mar 25, 2014
No Surprise wrote:
<quoted text>
I'll disagree of what you say the problem is about and what the laws mean.
The actual problem is both Jews and Christians today are applying themselves to religious codes of conduct/practices that were written/preached among people that lived 2000 years ago. And their having a real problem doing that.
The fact is that not all codes of conduct/practices from 2000 years ago can be followed today as they were followed then as our laws are so drastically different than theirs. Our social customs and traditions are different also.
The problem doesn't really lay in their meaning but in deciding which of those laws should be followed and which can't be obviously followed because of modern laws.
Well, I can mostly agree with you. What I cannot agree with is that it does not matter what "lays in their meaning."

Mostly, what their meanings meant 2000-4000 years ago is meaningful today except that Christianity no longer cares what the truth was about. Christianity makes their own faith. The problem is that Christianity may say that was the meaning in Leviticus and everyone will believe Christians; just because they say so. NOT SO!

My purpose is to show others that there are so many different ways that Christians believe that no one can be the right way. To do this I must document what the Bible says according to standard hermeneutics.

Since: Jun 13

Anchorage, AK

#26370 Mar 25, 2014
No Surprise wrote:
<quoted text>
I'll disagree of what you say the problem is about and what the laws mean.
The actual problem is both Jews and Christians today are applying themselves to religious codes of conduct/practices that were written/preached among people that lived 2000 years ago. And their having a real problem doing that.
The fact is that not all codes of conduct/practices from 2000 years ago can be followed today as they were followed then as our laws are so drastically different than theirs. Our social customs and traditions are different also.
The problem doesn't really lay in their meaning but in deciding which of those laws should be followed and which can't be obviously followed because of modern laws.
Those laws were meant for Israelites and only are required if you are Jew or live in Israel. When in Rome do as the Romans do. The Right would establish a theocracy if you allow it to happen. Super Pacs are moving America in that direction. The Koch brothers, the DeVos family just to mention a few of the Religious Right that are bound to determine to reshape America into a theocracy. America best wake up before it is too late. 2016 is the last chance to reverse the Right.

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#26372 Mar 25, 2014
No Surprise wrote:
<quoted text>
"I am an ordained priest in the very line of Spirit that became manifest in the Levites."
Are you Jewish or not?
If you're Jewish, you have in the above described yourself as many Christians describe themselves today, the new pick and chose of what commandments they'll follow and which they won't generation and to them God's okay with that.
Neither in the Torah or in the Christian Bible was it written that followers had the option to "pick and chose" concerning those laws and commandments when becoming a follower.
Technically, "Jewish" is the tribe of Judah.

Levites are the various clans and families of the tribe of Levy.

“Good day to you!”

Since: Oct 08

Earth

#26373 Mar 25, 2014
akopen wrote:
<quoted text>
Well, I can mostly agree with you. What I cannot agree with is that it does not matter what "lays in their meaning."
Mostly, what their meanings meant 2000-4000 years ago is meaningful today except that Christianity no longer cares what the truth was about. Christianity makes their own faith. The problem is that Christianity may say that was the meaning in Leviticus and everyone will believe Christians; just because they say so. NOT SO!
My purpose is to show others that there are so many different ways that Christians believe that no one can be the right way. To do this I must document what the Bible says according to standard hermeneutics.
Hermeneutics can have it's pluses if all are in agreement of a presented interpretation. Other wise it's about as useless as personal opinion not using any evidence at all.
The best thing to do to see who is following the early church Jesus set forth or even the Jewish church is to agree upon the very basics that they used for organization and than to see who imitates it the best 2000 years later now.
That's been done. Of all the Christian churches existing today, the LDS church imitates the early Christian church the best. But that still leaves the question are one of them correct and all others not?
According to the Torah and the NT we had two periods of time when God had direct influence with "his followers" and very few knew it. The NT declares God in a body walked this earth and most coming into contact with him saw him as just another person.
So the question is if God was using a prophet on this earth today, would we know it? I doubt it. Like 2000 years ago I doubt if less than .05%(if that much) of the earth's population today would know a real prophet of God walked among us.

“Good day to you!”

Since: Oct 08

Earth

#26374 Mar 25, 2014
snyper wrote:
<quoted text>
Technically, "Jewish" is the tribe of Judah.
Levites are the various clans and families of the tribe of Levy.
Technically is correct. That's why I asked if he was a Jew or not, not if he belonged to one of the tribes of Israel. Knowing what tribe he belonged to would mean he would have a genealogy data base of family names going back 2000 years to know what tribe he is from. I doubt he has that. And having a specific Israelite name doesn't denote true lineage to a tribe.

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#26375 Mar 26, 2014
No Surprise wrote:
<quoted text>
Hermeneutics can have it's pluses if all are in agreement of a presented interpretation. Other wise it's about as useless as personal opinion not using any evidence at all.
The best thing to do to see who is following the early church Jesus set forth or even the Jewish church is to agree upon the very basics that they used for organization and than to see who imitates it the best 2000 years later now.
That's been done. Of all the Christian churches existing today, the LDS church imitates the early Christian church the best. But that still leaves the question are one of them correct and all others not?
According to the Torah and the NT we had two periods of time when God had direct influence with "his followers" and very few knew it. The NT declares God in a body walked this earth and most coming into contact with him saw him as just another person.
So the question is if God was using a prophet on this earth today, would we know it? I doubt it. Like 2000 years ago I doubt if less than .05%(if that much) of the earth's population today would know a real prophet of God walked among us.
Sorry sugarbritches. Not even CLOSE !!!

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#26376 Mar 26, 2014
No Surprise wrote:
<quoted text>
Technically is correct. That's why I asked if he was a Jew or not, not if he belonged to one of the tribes of Israel. Knowing what tribe he belonged to would mean he would have a genealogy data base of family names going back 2000 years to know what tribe he is from. I doubt he has that. And having a specific Israelite name doesn't denote true lineage to a tribe.
Wow, are you ever wrong. lol

Since: Aug 09

Location hidden

#26377 Mar 26, 2014
No Surprise wrote:
<quoted text>
"I am an ordained priest in the very line of Spirit that became manifest in the Levites."
Are you Jewish or not?
If you're Jewish, you have in the above described yourself as many Christians describe themselves today, the new pick and chose of what commandments they'll follow and which they won't generation and to them God's okay with that.
Neither in the Torah or in the Christian Bible was it written that followers had the option to "pick and chose" concerning those laws and commandments when becoming a follower.
This is what I wrote, NS:

"I am an ordained priest in the very line of Spirit that became manifest in the Levites." To my knowIedge, I am not a descendant of the Tribe of Levi.

Psalm 110: 1-4

I do not claim to be a Jew, either by birth or by doctrinal conversion. I was born and raised Episcopalian and still attend Church as an Episcopalian.

My ordination is as a priest, "after the order of Melchizedek."

Rev. Ken

Since: Jun 13

Anchorage, AK

#26378 Mar 26, 2014
No Surprise wrote:
<quoted text>
Hermeneutics can have it's pluses if all are in agreement of a presented interpretation. Other wise it's about as useless as personal opinion not using any evidence at all.
The best thing to do to see who is following the early church Jesus set forth or even the Jewish church is to agree upon the very basics that they used for organization and than to see who imitates it the best 2000 years later now.
That's been done. Of all the Christian churches existing today, the LDS church imitates the early Christian church the best. But that still leaves the question are one of them correct and all others not?
According to the Torah and the NT we had two periods of time when God had direct influence with "his followers" and very few knew it. The NT declares God in a body walked this earth and most coming into contact with him saw him as just another person.
So the question is if God was using a prophet on this earth today, would we know it? I doubt it. Like 2000 years ago I doubt if less than .05%(if that much) of the earth's population today would know a real prophet of God walked among us.
I like your thinking, No Surprise, but with much concern. I first have to question whether you are Mormon. Not that Mormonism is any worse than any other Christian denomination, but simply because it would clarify from where you take your ideals from.

Now, what is true and what is false:

True

"Hermeneutics can have it's pluses if all are in agreement" That is why, standardized hermeneutics is necessary. If everyone is on the same page, basics are agreed upon, then interpretation can proceed. I have asked many to define what they are talking about so we can be on the same page. All to often they don't know themselves what it is that they are saying. They just mimic what they have been told. Christians fail the Pew Test regarding Christianity and religion.

False

"Hermeneutics can have it's pluses if all are in agreement of a presented interpretation." Hermeneutics, like basics must be agreed upon. There is not interpretation without agreed upon hermeneutics.

True

"The best thing to do to see who is following the early church Jesus set forth or even the Jewish church is to agree upon the very basics" But none, not even the Catholic Church is right with the Early Church.

False

"the LDS church imitates the early Christian church the best." You would have to make a major effort to educate me regarding your clarification of the LDS church. I would be very critical knowing LDS's history.

True

"But that still leaves the question are one of them correct and all others not?" No one church or individual can emphatically state that they are the true church, true representative of God. Idolatry, the basic sin does not allow for anyone or church to declare such an intimate relation to God. No one knows God!

False

"The NT declares God in a body walked this earth and most coming into contact with him saw him as just another person." At the very least, Peter asked if Jesus was a son of God. From the Jewish perspective this does not refer to Jesus as God's son. Christianity, more specifically, Christendom declares Jesus as God's Son but the Bible did not; not the OT nor the NT. This is why the Council of Nicaea and Chalcedon were called. Nicaea determined the divinity of Jesus as in man's percpeption, doctrine and Chalcedon established the Trinity as man's perception, doctrine. Man's perception, his doctrine is but fantasy, wishful thinking. And, afterall, is not salvation just wishful thinking? Is not heaven and hell a figment of man's imagination?

Why is it that American's cling so tenaciously to a dream? And yet, isn't that what Christianity is all about; salvation?

Problem

"So the question is if God was using a prophet on this earth today, would we know it?" Problem is your comparison of God and prophet. The general concept of your question is good, "would we know it?"

“Good day to you!”

Since: Oct 08

Earth

#26379 Mar 26, 2014
snyper wrote:
<quoted text>
Sorry sugarbritches. Not even CLOSE !!!
You're sorry for your lack of reasoning and logic? Understandable.

“Good day to you!”

Since: Oct 08

Earth

#26380 Mar 26, 2014
snyper wrote:
<quoted text>
Wow, are you ever wrong. lol
You have a lot of hot air to expel with no evidence for your hot air statements. Can you be any more boring in your responses or does it get better with your childish replies too?
So since you claim what I said is wrong, lets see if you have the mentality to show proof.
I said...
"Technically is correct. That's why I asked if he was a Jew or not, not if he belonged to one of the tribes of Israel. Knowing what tribe he belonged to would mean he would have a genealogy data base of family names going back 2000 years to know what tribe he is from. I doubt he has that. And having a specific Israelite name doesn't denote true lineage to a tribe."
Now you provide proof I'm incorrect as you claim would be the intelligent thing to do. Can you do the intelligent thing? Respond intelligently? Hmm?

“Good day to you!”

Since: Oct 08

Earth

#26381 Mar 26, 2014
RevKen wrote:
<quoted text>
This is what I wrote, NS:
"I am an ordained priest in the very line of Spirit that became manifest in the Levites." To my knowIedge, I am not a descendant of the Tribe of Levi.
Psalm 110: 1-4
I do not claim to be a Jew, either by birth or by doctrinal conversion. I was born and raised Episcopalian and still attend Church as an Episcopalian.
My ordination is as a priest, "after the order of Melchizedek."
Rev. Ken
I'm glad you feel you're a priest and would hope you conduct your self as one also. But we have no Biblical ties today to Melchizedek for priesthood ordination rites. There is no actual information even among modern rabbis of what the priesthood of Melchizedek entailed as we have info of the Levitical priesthood for example.

“Good day to you!”

Since: Oct 08

Earth

#26382 Mar 26, 2014
akopen wrote:
<quoted text>
I like your thinking, No Surprise, but with much concern. I first have to question whether you are Mormon. Not that Mormonism is any worse than any other Christian denomination, but simply because it would clarify from where you take your ideals from.
Now, what is true and what is false:
True
"Hermeneutics can have it's pluses if all are in agreement" That is why, standardized hermeneutics is necessary. If everyone is on the same page, basics are agreed upon, then interpretation can proceed. I have asked many to define what they are talking about so we can be on the same page. All to often they don't know themselves what it is that they are saying. They just mimic what they have been told. Christians fail the Pew Test regarding Christianity and religion.
False
"Hermeneutics can have it's pluses if all are in agreement of a presented interpretation." Hermeneutics, like basics must be agreed upon. There is not interpretation without agreed upon hermeneutics.
True
"The best thing to do to see who is following the early church Jesus set forth or even the Jewish church is to agree upon the very basics" But none, not even the Catholic Church is right with the Early Church.
False
"the LDS church imitates the early Christian church the best." You would have to make a major effort to educate me regarding your clarification of the LDS church. I would be very critical knowing LDS's history.
No I'm not Mormon. I have family that is Mormon and Baptist and a smattering of other Christian religions. I'm well rounded when it comes to Christian doctrines :)

You said this statement was false... ""Hermeneutics can have it's pluses if all are in agreement of a presented interpretation."
Than you went and stated almost what I said that you said was false.... "Hermeneutics, like basics must be agreed upon. There is not interpretation without agreed upon hermeneutics." See your error? We both stated hermeneutics works if all present are in agreement of the presented interpretation at hand.
Of the organization of an existing Christian church that more closely imitates that of the first one find all the following callings in one of these churches today.
chose twelve, whom also he named apostles: Luke 6:13 .( Luke 6:1216 .)
Lord appointed other seventy: Luke 10:1 .
there were in the church prophets and teachers: Acts 13:1 .
ordained them elders in every church: Acts 14:23 .
apostles and elders came together: Acts 15:6 .
built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets: Eph. 2:20
So Christ himself gave the apostles, the prophets, the evangelists, the pastors and teachers, Eph. 4:11 .
with the bishops and deacons: Philip. 1:1 .
As far as I have done my own research, the LDS church is the only Christian off shoot that mimics what the early church had concerning positions and offices and constantly refilling a position when it becomes empty of the former person.
Continued....

“Good day to you!”

Since: Oct 08

Earth

#26383 Mar 26, 2014
akopen wrote:
True
"But that still leaves the question are one of them correct and all others not?" No one church or individual can emphatically state that they are the true church, true representative of God. Idolatry, the basic sin does not allow for anyone or church to declare such an intimate relation to God. No one knows God!
False
"The NT declares God in a body walked this earth and most coming into contact with him saw him as just another person." At the very least, Peter asked if Jesus was a son of God. From the Jewish perspective this does not refer to Jesus as God's son. Christianity, more specifically, Christendom declares Jesus as God's Son but the Bible did not; not the OT nor the NT. This is why the Council of Nicaea and Chalcedon were called. Nicaea determined the divinity of Jesus as in man's percpeption, doctrine and Chalcedon established the Trinity as man's perception, doctrine. Man's perception, his doctrine is but fantasy, wishful thinking. And, afterall, is not salvation just wishful thinking? Is not heaven and hell a figment of man's imagination?
Why is it that American's cling so tenaciously to a dream? And yet, isn't that what Christianity is all about; salvation?
Problem
"So the question is if God was using a prophet on this earth today, would we know it?" Problem is your comparison of God and prophet. The general concept of your question is good, "would we know it?"
Consider what you said and that many probably stated when God as Jesus did in fact walk this earth as a human..... "...No one church or individual can emphatically state that they are the true church, true representative of God. Idolatry, the basic sin does not allow for anyone or church to declare such an intimate relation to God. No one knows God!" ....but the Biblical recorded fact is that while others 2000 years ago declared what you just did in one or more ways, God was on the earth. Even his very elect, the Israelites didn't recognize him and even rejected him and they were waiting for him!

American's cling so tenaciously to a dream? The dreams of Christianity were based and founded in the rest of the world for 1600 years before America became infested with it's religious doctrine. How do you seem to miss that by saying it's an American dream? It was a European, middle east and Spanish dream for 1500 years strong. A very biased statement if anything. Where are you from?

“=”

Since: Oct 07

Appleton WI

#26384 Mar 26, 2014
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
You lie, that parameter was never established.
smile.
Still using the same old tactics that would get you kicked out of the debate club. Claim that I lie, but don't explain... say something very vague... and NEVER actually address a single point that I made. I can't call this fail "epic" because it is so everyday, mundane, and expected from you. It's just an obnoxiously repetitious fail.

“=”

Since: Oct 07

Appleton WI

#26385 Mar 26, 2014
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
Girls, I have simply noted that if your claim that invalidating ONE law, invalidates them all, it would include murder, theft and lying.
You made the claim, now admit your stupidity and apologize.
Smile.
Now HERE is a parameter that was never established. To my knowledge, nobody made this claim. You made it up so you could argue with something that nobody said. Snyper will happily let you know which form of logical fallacy this is. ;)

No one is making the asinine claim that if it's acceptable for consenting adults of the same sex to form intimate relationships, then it must also be acceptable to steal cheat, and lie. NO ONE SAID ANYTHING REMOTELY LIKE THAT. Except you.
YOU made the claim, now admit your stupidity and apologize.

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#26386 Mar 26, 2014
Tre H wrote:
<quoted text>
Still using the same old tactics that would get you kicked out of the debate club. Claim that I lie, but don't explain... say something very vague... and NEVER actually address a single point that I made. I can't call this fail "epic" because it is so everyday, mundane, and expected from you. It's just an obnoxiously repetitious fail.
Indeed. I just use the scroll button.

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) 38 min Rose_NoHo 6,167
News New Art Therapy Studio Draws on Power of Expres... 9 hr Dive4lifeblue 2
News 1 step forward, 2 steps back for LBGT rights in... 9 hr Captain Underpants 7
News Daycare worker, 23, is charged with the murder 21 hr Fit2Serve 2
News Church of Scotland moves closer to letting mini... Fri Pope Closet Emeritus 2
News From the Mouth of Muhammad: 'Allah Will Wed Me ... May 26 Muslims lie all t... 2
News Taiwan court legalizes gay marriage in historic... May 24 The Wheeze of Trump 5
More from around the web