Homosexuality and the Bible

Homosexuality and the Bible

There are 36046 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

#26759 Apr 11, 2014
RevKen wrote:
<quoted text>
How do you relate your quote of de Tocqueville to the thread topic?
I can see how but can KiMare? Tocqueville brings up a one point that leads to another and it becomes pertinent to this discussion. It will be interesting to see if KiMare really gets it.

Since: Jun 13

Anchorage, AK

#26760 Apr 11, 2014
snyper wrote:
<quoted text>
I'm 88 years old.
I take it you are strong and with a sound mind. I wish you many more years, snyper.

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#26762 Apr 11, 2014
akopen wrote:
Homosexuality and Roman Catholicism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality_an...
What seems to be arbitrary or unseemly practiced law (Church Canon or secular courts), Church Canon took its queue from civil law at the time, establishing laws governing human sexuality beginning with the Council of Elvira (305-306), http://faculty.cua.edu/pennington/Canon%20Law... . This Council is a great example as it is the beginning of the Church's arbitrary and seemly practice, of Canon Law. Note Canon Law numbered 71 as it addresses pedophilia. Also, note that the above wiki link lays out how history establishes that homosexual activity is a grave "transgression against the social," order. As an example of the Church's documentation of her condemnation of homosexuality, the Council of Elvira, begins Canon Law with Law 71 addressing "those that sexually abuse boys." The concern then was the sexual abuse of boys, not homosexuality. What history demonstrates is how the crimes of sodomy became synonymous with identifying the Church's condemnation of homosexuality. Every historical confirmation of the Early Church had to do with the sexual abuse of boys. This was prevalant within the Church hierarchy as well as in various social, secular capacities.
This then begins to explain why homosexuality as we know it today is condemned within Christianity. For the most part, this condemnation has become a scapegoat of the Church covering up her gravest sin. The Church's sin is hiding sexual abuse of boys by priests essentially, the Hierarchy of the Church as a whole.
The Church no longer states that homosexuality is a sin but condemns all sexual acts outside of marriage. Is it no wonder that the Church or, any Christian denomination would struggle against SSM?
This wiki does a nice job to lay out the history of condemning homosexuality. What it convienently leaves out is that in the transition from sodomy to homosexuality is but only a contrived condemnation covering up the Church's sexual abuse of boys.
"In Western culture, homosexual activity was first categorized as a sin. With the rise of materialism and the decline of religion, it became a transgression against the social, not the moral order: a crime." Michael Bronski: Culture Clash: The Making of Gay Sensibility (South End Press 1984 ISBN 978-0-89608217-5), p. 8
I thought that you might find this interesting. Please forgive me if I've linked to it for you before.

Since: Jun 13

Anchorage, AK

#26763 Apr 11, 2014
snyper wrote:
<quoted text>
I thought that you might find this interesting. Please forgive me if I've linked to it for you before.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v =RaDTWZIXfLUXX
Thanks, snyper. Many thanks. That interview rapped up my 40 years of seeking the truth. I'm always looking for collaboration to what I have come to understand about Christian thought. Again, thanks.

Since: Jun 13

Anchorage, AK

#26764 Apr 15, 2014
Seems as if this forum is dead. If not I present one more thought concerning Early Church Fathers position on homosexuality or that there was no position taken on homosexuality:

Theophilus of Antioch

Editions
Jacques Paul Migne's Patrologia Graeca,[37] and a small edition (Cambridge 1852) by W. G. Humphry. Johann Carl Theodor von Otto's edition in the Corpus apologetarum christianorum saeculi secundi vol. ii.(Jena, 1861) is by far the most complete and useful. English translations by Joseph Betty (Oxford 1722), W. B. Flower (London, 1860), Marcus Dods (Clark's Ante-Nicene Library), and Robert M. Grant (Clarendon Press, 1970).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theophilus_of_A...

While it's clear that recent translations of early Christian texts do often impose modern conceptions of and prejudices against homosexuality onto the text, I suspect that that's not what's going on here; Dods is writing in the nineteenth century and probably is trying to be cagey about the vice he's referring to.–Roscelese (talk &#8901; contribs) 01:03, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
Roscelese, do you have a reliable source of commentary on Dods that offers that explanation or is this your personal opinion? Elizium23 (talk) 02:13, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
Oh, it's my opinion and I'd never suggest that we put it in the article. I initially read AlaskaTW's comment as suggesting that we discuss the differences in translation and was going to say that we would need an analytical source for that, but then realized that s/he just wanted to use the Dods translation instead, which I'm not sure is a good idea. Not knowing the original text and only seeing these two translations, I'm speculating that Dods's 19th-century translation is just avoiding directness because of social taboos.–Roscelese (talk &#8901; contribs) 02:32, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

I present the above as I have attempted to suggest that a wiki is misleading.

Snyper, I'd really like to hear what you might have to say about translations differing. The quoted translation in question comes from Theophilus of Autolycus, Book I, second to last sentence. What I find misleading: "To the unbelieving, who despise and disobey the truth but obey unrighteousness, when they are full of adulteries and fornication and homosexual acts and greed and lawless idolatry, there will come wrath and anger, tribulation and anguish, and finally eternal fire."[60].

Misleading because the reference to other translations all say differently:“But to the unbelieving and despisers, who obey not the truth, but are obedient to unrighteousness, when they shall have been filled with adulteries and fornications, and filthiness, and covetousness, and unlawful idolatries, there shall be anger and wrath, tribulation and anguish, and at the last everlasting fire shall possess such men.”

This last quote differs with the modern biblical scholor, Rick Rogers' translation using "homosexual act." Rev. Marcus Dods translates, "filthiness."

I believe that the above editions also translate "filthiness." I have done some research regarding the translation that uses "filthiness" and I can validate that translation. I had to begin with an internet translation of the word "filthiness" as I have been unable to locate the book in the original language. From that translation I established that the Latin word's definition defined "filthiness" as luxury. It is from this that I have documented where the Church and Christianity gets the notion that "homosexual acts" is the correct translation.

Just curious if you could weigh in on these differing translations.

I will have to go to the University library to do some more indebt research.

Since: Aug 09

Location hidden

#26765 Apr 15, 2014
akopen wrote:
Seems as if this forum is dead. If not I present one more thought concerning Early Church Fathers position on homosexuality or that there was no position taken on homosexuality:
Theophilus of Antioch
Editions
Jacques Paul Migne's Patrologia Graeca,[37] and a small edition (Cambridge 1852) by W. G. Humphry. Johann Carl Theodor von Otto's edition in the Corpus apologetarum christianorum saeculi secundi vol. ii.(Jena, 1861) is by far the most complete and useful. English translations by Joseph Betty (Oxford 1722), W. B. Flower (London, 1860), Marcus Dods (Clark's Ante-Nicene Library), and Robert M. Grant (Clarendon Press, 1970).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theophilus_of_A...
While it's clear that recent translations of early Christian texts do often impose modern conceptions of and prejudices against homosexuality onto the text, I suspect that that's not what's going on here; Dods is writing in the nineteenth century and probably is trying to be cagey about the vice he's referring to.–Roscelese (talk &#8901; contribs) 01:03, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
Roscelese, do you have a reliable source of commentary on Dods that offers that explanation or is this your personal opinion? Elizium23 (talk) 02:13, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
Oh, it's my opinion and I'd never suggest that we put it in the article. I initially read AlaskaTW's comment as suggesting that we discuss the differences in translation and was going to say that we would need an analytical source for that, but then realized that s/he just wanted to use the Dods translation instead, which I'm not sure is a good idea. Not knowing the original text and only seeing these two translations, I'm speculating that Dods's 19th-century translation is just avoiding directness because of social taboos.–Roscelese (talk &#8901; contribs) 02:32, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
I present the above as I have attempted to suggest that a wiki is misleading.
Snyper, I'd really like to hear what you might have to say about translations differing. The quoted translation in question comes from Theophilus of Autolycus, Book I, second to last sentence. What I find misleading: "To the unbelieving, who despise and disobey the truth but obey unrighteousness, when they are full of adulteries and fornication and homosexual acts and greed and lawless idolatry, there will come wrath and anger, tribulation and anguish, and finally eternal fire."[60].
Misleading because the reference to other translations all say differently:“But to the unbelieving and despisers, who obey not the truth, but are obedient to unrighteousness, when they shall have been filled with adulteries and fornications, and filthiness, and covetousness, and unlawful idolatries, there shall be anger and wrath, tribulation and anguish, and at the last everlasting fire shall possess such men.”
This last quote differs with the modern biblical scholor, Rick Rogers' translation using "homosexual act." Rev. Marcus Dods translates, "filthiness."
I believe that the above editions also translate "filthiness." I have done some research regarding the translation that uses "filthiness" and I can validate that translation. I had to begin with an internet translation of the word "filthiness" as I have been unable to locate the book in the original language. From that translation I established that the Latin word's definition defined "filthiness" as luxury. It is from this that I have documented where the Church and Christianity gets the notion that "homosexual acts" is the correct translation.
Just curious if you could weigh in on these differing translations.
I will have to go to the University library to do some more indebt research.
Please continue to report on your findings.

This thread is not dead. We are just taking a break from all of the histrionics. Your last comment had been a good "breather" point.

Rev. Ken

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#26767 Apr 15, 2014
akopen wrote:
Seems as if this forum is dead. If not I present one more thought concerning Early Church Fathers position on homosexuality or that there was no position taken on homosexuality:
Theophilus of Antioch
Editions
Jacques Paul Migne's Patrologia Graeca,[37] and a small edition (Cambridge 1852) by W. G. Humphry. Johann Carl Theodor von Otto's edition in the Corpus apologetarum christianorum saeculi secundi vol. ii.(Jena, 1861) is by far the most complete and useful. English translations by Joseph Betty (Oxford 1722), W. B. Flower (London, 1860), Marcus Dods (Clark's Ante-Nicene Library), and Robert M. Grant (Clarendon Press, 1970).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theophilus_of_A...
While it's clear that recent translations of early Christian texts do often impose modern conceptions of and prejudices against homosexuality onto the text, I suspect that that's not what's going on here; Dods is writing in the nineteenth century and probably is trying to be cagey about the vice he's referring to.–Roscelese (talk &#8901; contribs) 01:03, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
Roscelese, do you have a reliable source of commentary on Dods that offers that explanation or is this your personal opinion? Elizium23 (talk) 02:13, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
Oh, it's my opinion and I'd never suggest that we put it in the article. I initially read AlaskaTW's comment as suggesting that we discuss the differences in translation and was going to say that we would need an analytical source for that, but then realized that s/he just wanted to use the Dods translation instead, which I'm not sure is a good idea. Not knowing the original text and only seeing these two translations, I'm speculating that Dods's 19th-century translation is just avoiding directness because of social taboos.–Roscelese (talk &#8901; contribs) 02:32, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
I present the above as I have attempted to suggest that a wiki is misleading.
Snyper, I'd really like to hear what you might have to say about translations differing. The quoted translation in question comes from Theophilus of Autolycus, Book I, second to last sentence. What I find misleading: "To the unbelieving, who despise and disobey the truth but obey unrighteousness, when they are full of adulteries and fornication and homosexual acts and greed and lawless idolatry, there will come wrath and anger, tribulation and anguish, and finally eternal fire."[60].
Misleading because the reference to other translations all say differently:“But to the unbelieving and despisers, who obey not the truth, but are obedient to unrighteousness, when they shall have been filled with adulteries and fornications, and filthiness, and covetousness, and unlawful idolatries, there shall be anger and wrath, tribulation and anguish, and at the last everlasting fire shall possess such men.”
This last quote differs with the modern biblical scholor, Rick Rogers' translation using "homosexual act." Rev. Marcus Dods translates, "filthiness."
I believe that the above editions also translate "filthiness." I have done some research regarding the translation that uses "filthiness" and I can validate that translation. I had to begin with an internet translation of the word "filthiness" as I have been unable to locate the book in the original language. From that translation I established that the Latin word's definition defined "filthiness" as luxury. It is from this that I have documented where the Church and Christianity gets the notion that "homosexual acts" is the correct translation.
Just curious if you could weigh in on these differing translations.
I will have to go to the University library to do some more indebt research.
You think? I figure most of the idolatrous posters have walked. They were held accountable for their idolatrous misuse of the Bible.

Since: Jun 13

Anchorage, AK

#26769 Apr 15, 2014
WasteWater wrote:
<quoted text>
You think? I figure most of the idolatrous posters have walked. They were held accountable for their idolatrous misuse of the Bible.
You may be right, WasteWater or, may be that it is Easter.

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#26770 Apr 15, 2014
akopen wrote:
<quoted text>
You may be right, WasteWater or, may be that it is Easter.
Easter is supposed to be a time of great reflection :)

We can only pray that God reached these lost souls.

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#26771 Apr 15, 2014
akopen wrote:
<quoted text>
You may be right, WasteWater or, may be that it is Easter.
How about both or neither?

Could I be turning into a Zen Buddhist?

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#26772 Apr 15, 2014
WasteWater wrote:
<quoted text>
Easter is supposed to be a time of great reflection :)
We can only pray that God reached these lost souls.
Galatians 6:7 (AMP)
7 Do not be deceived and deluded and misled; God will not allow Himself to be sneered at (scorned, disdained, or mocked by mere pretensions or professions, or by His precepts being set aside.)[He inevitably deludes himself who attempts to delude God.] For whatever a man sows, that and that only is what he will reap.

If you were wise, you'd tremble in your shoes.

Since: Jun 13

Anchorage, AK

#26773 Apr 15, 2014
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
Galatians 6:7 (AMP)
7 Do not be deceived and deluded and misled; God will not allow Himself to be sneered at (scorned, disdained, or mocked by mere pretensions or professions, or by His precepts being set aside.)[He inevitably deludes himself who attempts to delude God.] For whatever a man sows, that and that only is what he will reap.
If you were wise, you'd tremble in your shoes.
Mark4:
25To the one who has, more will be given; from the one who has not, even what he has will be taken away.”i
Matthew:13
12b To anyone who has, more will be given* and he will grow rich; from anyone who has not, even what he has will be taken away.
Luke 19:
26‘I tell you, to everyone who has, more will be given, but from the one who has not, even what he has will be taken away.h
Luke 8:
18Take care, then, how you hear. To anyone who has, more will be given, and from the one who has not, even what he seems to have will be taken away.”l

Matthew 25:
30* And throw this useless servant into the darkness outside, where there will be wailing and grinding of teeth.’

Matthew 25:*[25:37–40] The righteous will be astonished that in caring for the needs of the sufferers they were ministering to the Lord himself. One of these least brothers of mine: cf. Mt 10:42.

Since: Jun 13

Anchorage, AK

#26774 Apr 15, 2014
St. Augustine's Concept of Disordered Love and its Contemporary Application,
David K. Naugle, Th.D., Ph.D.,
Southwest Commission on Religious Studies Theology and Philosophy of Religion Group, March 12, 1993.
“What seems to interest Augustine here is the moral attitude of the questioner, not so much that the order and beauty of these things imply the existence of the Creator, but rather that since God had created them they must be seen for what they are as His handiwork, to value them accordingly, and to worship only Him and not his handiwork which would be disordered love. The moral aspect of his deliberations—rightly understanding the order of things and responding appropriately to them—seems to be the critical point (Marcus 1967:204).” p. 11, 12.

“To love God is, then, the indispensable requirement for happiness, because only God, who is infinite, can satisfy that special need in humanity that is the temporal and finite with resultant pathologies.” p. 12.

“What a person loves, and how he or she loves it, will determine the course and character of life, as well as the condition of society.” p. 12.

“The Bible would call this disordered love in the extreme “idolatry,” and the disordered lives that result from idolatry would, in the biblical idiom, be labeled unrighteousness.” p. 18
http://www3.dbu.edu/naugle/pdf/disordered_lov...

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#26775 Apr 15, 2014
akopen wrote:
<quoted text>
Mark4:
25To the one who has, more will be given; from the one who has not, even what he has will be taken away.”i
Matthew:13
12b To anyone who has, more will be given* and he will grow rich; from anyone who has not, even what he has will be taken away.
Luke 19:
26‘I tell you, to everyone who has, more will be given, but from the one who has not, even what he has will be taken away.h
Luke 8:
18Take care, then, how you hear. To anyone who has, more will be given, and from the one who has not, even what he seems to have will be taken away.”l
Matthew 25:
30* And throw this useless servant into the darkness outside, where there will be wailing and grinding of teeth.’
Matthew 25:*[25:37–40] The righteous will be astonished that in caring for the needs of the sufferers they were ministering to the Lord himself. One of these least brothers of mine: cf. Mt 10:42.
The Church I attend sent over twenty teams of volunteers out into the community Saturday to help the needy. Sunday we had a Dr. from Africa thank us for donating $60,000 to build a hospital for handicapped children. We also sent a team to help build it. That's just a tiny snippet of ONE church in ONE community.

However, my passage referred to your continual distortion and desecration of God's plainly written Word. A practice you pursue with vile bitterness and anger.

Since: Jun 13

Anchorage, AK

#26776 Apr 15, 2014
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
The Church I attend sent over twenty teams of volunteers out into the community Saturday to help the needy. Sunday we had a Dr. from Africa thank us for donating $60,000 to build a hospital for handicapped children. We also sent a team to help build it. That's just a tiny snippet of ONE church in ONE community.
However, my passage referred to your continual distortion and desecration of God's plainly written Word. A practice you pursue with vile bitterness and anger.
But KiMare, I document my, according to you, "distortion and desecration of God's plainly written Word," with biblical scholars. How is it that your, undocumented, "distortion and desecration of God's plainly written Word" is but only your own personal perversion?

“[xxxiv]”
“62. For they were seeming to live as if in calm, when they were taking care to rejoice in the credit of holiness.” Moralia in Job, Gregory the Great.

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#26777 Apr 15, 2014
WasteWater wrote:
<quoted text>
How about both or neither?
Could I be turning into a Zen Buddhist?
or "Either or Both"?



(one of my favorites of hers)

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#26778 Apr 15, 2014
akopen wrote:
<quoted text> ... Snyper, I'd really like to hear what you might have to say...
I'll have to look at it in the community library first. The Saulines are required reading, but we don't study them.

Since: Jun 13

Anchorage, AK

#26779 Apr 15, 2014
snyper wrote:
<quoted text>
I'll have to look at it in the community library first. The Saulines are required reading, but we don't study them.
Thanks, snyper.

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#26780 Apr 15, 2014
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
Galatians 6:7 (AMP)
7 Do not be deceived and deluded and misled; God will not allow Himself to be sneered at (scorned, disdained, or mocked by mere pretensions or professions, or by His precepts being set aside.)[He inevitably deludes himself who attempts to delude God.] For whatever a man sows, that and that only is what he will reap.
If you were wise, you'd tremble in your shoes.
argumentum ad baculum fallacy

You are making a false idol of the Bible. Your God is too small.

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#26781 Apr 15, 2014
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
Galatians 6:7 (AMP)
7 Do not be deceived and deluded and misled; God will not allow Himself to be sneered at (scorned, disdained, or mocked by mere pretensions or professions, or by His precepts being set aside.)[He inevitably deludes himself who attempts to delude God.] For whatever a man sows, that and that only is what he will reap.
If you were wise, you'd tremble in your shoes.
This is also a total projection. You may consider following your own advice moron.

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 Our recommendation: Springboro voters should sa... (Feb '08) 5 min Pay your taxes 31,934
News Imam: No such thing as temporary marriage in Islam 2 hr Naman 10
News Bill Clinton tells a love story to make his cas... Wed Le Jimbo 4
News Bristol Palin: Breaking abstinence pledge again... (Jun '15) Tue Keynes 12
News Ben Carson Warns Gay Couples Against Pushing Ba... (Jan '15) Tue Divorce Lawyer 77
News Prince Harry Engaged: Marriage To Camilla Thurl... (Sep '14) Mon hillary 2
News More gay people can now get legally married. Th... (Oct '14) Mon Jake 55
More from around the web