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
14,541 - 14,560 of 24,751 Comments Last updated 1 hr ago

Since: Apr 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#16163
Jan 26, 2013
 
RevKen wrote:
<quoted text>
LOL!!!....
Thanks, Manmanman!
:)

Since: Aug 09

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#16164
Jan 26, 2013
 
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
You haven't answer how an Alien created the most significant culture in existence with those Laws.
Snicker.
Dear Frozen Snicker,

Why should he even attempt a recitation of such an averring misconception?

This is something that you believe, but cannot prove.

Which is more important, attribution of the origin of ancient superstitious belief to an influence from alien guidance?

Or, attribution of an enlightened, living and modern spiritual practice to the teachings of Christ Jesus?

It is a free country and you can believe what you choose.

Some of us enthusiastically choose the latter.

Rev. Ken
Robsan5

Chowchilla, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#16165
Jan 26, 2013
 
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
Here is the irony.
The hate is directed at me.
I simply state among numerous things, two simple facts;
1. Marriage is a cross cultural constraint on evolutionary mating behavior
2. Anal sex is inherently harmful, unhealthy and demeaning.
Nothing hateful in those statements. You just don't like the reality of those truths.
Moreover, it's not my cage that's being rattled.
Snicker smirk.
"Facts"?!?
You don't even understand the meaning of the word "constraint", and you think what you post are facts?
Please explain how anal sex is harmful, unhealthy and demeaning. You seem to be the expert on all things concerning anal sex.
I love rattling your cage, genius.

Wow are you stupid.

Snicker Snort.

Robert

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#16166
Jan 26, 2013
 
RevKen wrote:
<quoted text>
LOL!!!....
No.
The American College Dictionary:
apostate, n. 1. one who forsakes his church.... etc.
Sorry. I have not forsaken my church.
constraint, n. 1. confinement or restriction. f the word you have used.
Marriage, properly created is a mutually supportive liberation of the souls of the couple. This is why Christ Jesus recited the text of the wording in Genesis, saying, "Have you not read ...?" The union created, which is blessed and sanctified by the Spirit through the priest or shaman, is the reality.
President Obama does not define Marriage.
I previously responded:
1. Marriage has nothing to do with any constraint on mating behavior. In fact, marriage is exactly the opposite. It is , most generally, a private ...t is not at all limited to or defined by the act of procreation. No two couples are alike, whether heterosexual or homosexual. You have no say in their behavior.
2. Gay couples demonstrate the unique product of uniting diverse genders. You just don't recognize how they constitute their gender identity and you d...n for any such couple to exclusively commit to each other. Your problems. Not theirs.
3. Whether by contribution of sperm or egg, Gay couples can and do provide genetic material that does result in new human beings. Furthermor'''abilities in the raising of well-adjusted, normally sexually oriented children. As parents, they have also proven themselves to be as good as any and much better than many who fit your stereotype of a family.
4. The universal State recognition of legal contract is precisely what the Gay couple is rightly requesting, with all of the attendant benefits. This State endorsement of their union is precisely what they are going to get. As for their spiritual marriage, the Gay couple who makes their mutual commitment out of a liberating love, respect, welfare and trust is a union already demonstrating the essentials of marriage. Such union is fully deserving of sanctification.
5. The successful Gay couple correctly presents the model of the "wedding" of two souls. Instead, most often, it is the "Frankensteinian" fitting of tw'''bandonment.
Your understanding of these issues is found wanting.
Rev. Ken
A priest and disciple of Christ Jesus.
1. By the vast consensus of Christian theology and members, you have abandoned the Christian Church and embraced heresy.

2. Gay twirl. Marriage doesn't constrain mating behavior, it 'liberates' it to one partner. Seriously 'rev.'???

You then top it off by saying a child blended by the union of marriage doesn't 'define' them? Do you read what you write???

Moreover, my wife and I 'limited' our lives for 20 years to raise our two children. It is the highlight of our life to date.

3. Gay couples may demonstrate the unique product of marriage, they just can't duplicate it. Ever.

4. Gay couples can't procreate. See the difference?

In the latest, largest and most scientific study to date, lesbian couples ranked last of seven family types (male couples didn't even rank). Behind single parents.

I didn't 'stereo type' families, I simply noted the scientific fact of natural parents and the other default types.

5. If all you want is a contract, get a lawyer.

There are lots of committed relationships that are sacred. Only one is marriage. Gay couples are a desecration of sacred marriage.

6. All a gay couple models is duplication. It clearly violates the Scriptural description of a man leaving his father and mother and being united with his wife.

As to broken marriages, you simply pervert the hardness of heart Jesus spoke of. That certainly doesn't justify calling gay couples married. Again, what a stupid argument.

The hand writing is on your wall 'rev'.

Snicker.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#16167
Jan 26, 2013
 
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
Friends don't 'analize' each other either.
Snicker.
Robsan5 wrote:
<quoted text>
I have two questions:
1- when you figure out what your post means, could you let us know?
2- when you figure out how to spell analyze, could you let us know?
Man are you stupid,
Robert
1. See number two.

2. If I meant analyze, I would have said analyze. I didn't, I said analize.

Snicker.

Since: Apr 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#16168
Jan 26, 2013
 
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
Here is the irony.
The hate is directed at me.
I simply state among numerous things, two simple facts;
1. Marriage is a cross cultural constraint on evolutionary mating behavior
2. Anal sex is inherently harmful, unhealthy and demeaning.
Nothing hateful in those statements. You just don't like the reality of those truths.
Moreover, it's not my cage that's being rattled.
Snicker smirk.
Agree, nothing hateful here.
Robsan5

Chowchilla, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#16169
Jan 26, 2013
 
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
You haven't answer how an Alien created the most significant culture in existence with those Laws.
Snicker.
Please define what makes a culture "the most significant culture in existence", besides the only "proof" you have offered (number of Nobel prize recipients?!?).

Golly you are stupid.

Snicker Snort,

Robert
Robsan5

Chowchilla, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#16170
Jan 26, 2013
 
KiMare wrote:
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
Friends don't 'analize' each other either.
Snicker.
<quoted text>
1. See number two.
2. If I meant analyze, I would have said analyze. I didn't, I said analize.
Snicker.
Oh, so you are the anal sex expert here. Great. If I ever have any questions, I'll let you know.

Snicker Snort.

Robert
Join Free

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#16171
Jan 26, 2013
 
Robsan5 wrote:
<quoted text>
Please define what makes a culture "the most significant culture in existence", besides the only "proof" you have offered (number of Nobel prize recipients?!?).
Golly you are stupid.
Snicker Snort,
Robert
That percentage of Nobel prize winners in numerous categories by a single small culture isn't significant?

I guess you 'win' if every thing I list gets discounted.

Smile.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#16172
Jan 26, 2013
 
Robsan5 wrote:
<quoted text>
Oh, so you are the anal sex expert here. Great. If I ever have any questions, I'll let you know.
Snicker Snort.
Robert
Friends still don't analize each other.

Chuckle.
Robsan5

Chowchilla, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#16173
Jan 26, 2013
 
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
That percentage of Nobel prize winners in numerous categories by a single small culture isn't significant?
I guess you 'win' if every thing I list gets discounted.
Smile.
It is significant, as a percentage of Nobel prize winners.
Does it justify being called "the most significant culture"? Nope.

Holy moly you are stupid.

Robert
Robsan5

Chowchilla, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#16174
Jan 26, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
Friends still don't analize each other.
Chuckle.
Oh, so you only have anal sex with strangers? You are kinky.

Gosh you are stupid.

Robert

“Marriage equality for all”

Since: Jul 07

Illinois

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#16175
Jan 26, 2013
 

Judged:

3

3

3

KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
Hilarious question considering the content of your post.
Snicker.
The content of my post was, in your words, "simply reality".

Have you not claimed that you have a vagina, third nipple, and inner lesbian?

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#16176
Jan 27, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Marengo Jon wrote:
<quoted text>
The content of my post was, in your words, "simply reality".
Have you not claimed that you have a vagina, third nipple, and inner lesbian?
That makes me a hermaphroditic genetic chimera.

You are clearly the troll.

:-)
Robsan5

Chowchilla, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#16177
Jan 27, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
That makes me a hermaphroditic genetic chimera.
You are clearly the troll.
:-)
No wonder you are confused. And stupid.

Snicker Snort.

Robert

Since: Aug 09

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#16178
Jan 27, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
1. By the vast consensus of Christian theology and members, you have abandoned the Christian Church and embraced heresy.
2. Gay twirl. Marriage doesn't constrain mating behavior, it 'liberates' it to one partner. Seriously 'rev.'???
You then top it off by saying a child blended by the union of marriage doesn't 'define' them? Do you read what you write???
Moreover, my wife and I 'limited' our lives for 20 years to raise our two children. It is the highlight of our life to date.
3. Gay couples may demonstrate the unique product of marriage, they just can't duplicate it. Ever.
4. Gay couples can't procreate. See the difference?
In the latest, largest and most scientific study to date, lesbian couples ranked last of seven family types (male couples didn't even rank). Behind single parents.
I didn't 'stereo type' families, I simply noted the scientific fact of natural parents and the other default types.
5. If all you want is a contract, get a lawyer.
There are lots of committed relationships that are sacred. Only one is marriage. Gay couples are a desecration of sacred marriage.
6. All a gay couple models is duplication. It clearly violates the Scriptural description of a man leaving his father and mother and being united with his wife.
As to broken marriages, you simply pervert the hardness of heart Jesus spoke of. That certainly doesn't justify calling gay couples married. Again, what a stupid argument.
The hand writing is on your wall 'rev'.
Snicker.
Dear old, dried-out Snicker Bar,

Let's review your replies.

1. Vast consensus? There are now about 6 billion people on this planet. How many of them are "Christians?"

By your logic, because the "Christians" are, by a "vast consensus," a minority of the world's population, they are wrong to be followers of Jesus in their beliefs.

By your logic, the "vast consensus" among the Christians of 750 years ago, a full 1250 years AFTER the Ministry and Teaching of Christ Jesus, was that the world was flat with edges that one could fall over and never return. The same "vast consensus" believed that the Sun revolved around the Earth.

The same "vast consensus" also believed that the demon-borne disease of Malaria was contracted by breathing the "bad air" (mal - aria) that hangs over swamps. They were pretty close. Mosquito populations thrive in swampy areas. "Vast consensus?"

Now. Let's set the record straight.

It is YOU who have chosen to take up the beliefs of your precursors, which beliefs are full of heresy and misconception and a fractured, misdirected understanding of what Christ Jesus actually taught.

The "vast consensus" of Your own "Christian" predecessors believed that black people were somewhat less than human.

Why is it that you no longer believe this, yourself? They did. Why don't you?

The "vast consensus" of "Christians" yet today are taught that women cannot function as priests and presbyters, pastors and ministers and deacons and apostles. Do you believe this? Are you one of the "vast consensus" that continues to hold that women are incapable of holding and serving Christ through these offices?

This is not what Christ Jesus taught. If you believe in any way at all that he held a Divine insight, then you have to acknowledge that the Gospel was first delivered into the world through a woman - whether by Mary his mother, at his birth or by Mary, his friend and companion, upon his resurrection.

How did you go wrong?

In the Acts of the Apostles, a story is told of Philip being guided to an Ethiopian eunuch who held a high position in his Court. Philip brought him into the light. Was there something inferior about this eunuch? All we know about him was that he was both a black man and not heterosexual. He was literate and held a high position of authority. He was also deeply spiritual and was seeking to know God.

Thank God for the the story of this one human being.

Rev. Ken
An ordained priest.
Robsan5

Chowchilla, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#16179
Jan 27, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
...
In the latest, largest and most scientific study to date, lesbian couples ranked last of seven family types (male couples didn't even rank). Behind single parents.
...
Please post all these great scientific studies. Or even just the study you reference here.
Oh, and if males couples "didn't even rank", wouldn't that make them last?!?

Please keep displaying your stupidity, genius.

Robert

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#16181
Jan 27, 2013
 

Judged:

2

1

1

RevKen wrote:
<quoted text>
Dear old, dried-out Snicker Bar,
Let's review your replies.
1. Vast consensus? There are now about 6 billion people on this planet. How many of them are "Christians?"
By your logic, because the "Christians" are, by a "vast consensus," a minority of the world's population, they are wrong to be followers of Jesus in their beliefs.
By your logic, the "vast consensus" among the Christians of 750 years ago, a full 1250 years AFTER the Ministry and Teaching of Christ Jesus, was that the world was flat with edges that one could fall over and never return. The same "vast consensus" believed that the Sun revolved around the Earth.
The same "vast consensus" also believed that the demon-borne disease of Malaria was contracted by breathing the "bad air" (mal - aria) that hangs over swamps. They were pretty close. Mosquito populations thrive in swampy areas. "Vast consensus?"
Now. Let's set the record straight.
It is YOU who have chosen to take up the beliefs of your precursors, which beliefs are full of heresy and misconception and a fractured, misdirected understanding of what Christ Jesus actually taught.
The "vast consensus" of Your own "Christian" predecessors believed that black people were somewhat less than human.
Why is it that you no longer believe this, yourself? They did. Why don't you?
The "vast consensus" of "Christians" yet today are taught that women cannot function as priests and presbyters, pastors and ministers and deacons and apostles. Do you believe this? Are you one of the "vast consensus" that continues to hold that women are incapable of holding and serving Christ through these offices?
This is not what Christ Jesus taught. If you believe in any way at all that he held a Divine insight, then you have to acknowledge that the Gospel was first delivered into the world through a woman - whether by Mary his mother, at his birth or by Mary, his friend and companion, upon his resurrection.
How did you go wrong?
In the Acts of the Apostles, a story is told of Philip being guided to an Ethiopian eunuch who held a high position in his Court. Philip brought him into the light. Was there something inferior about this eunuch? All we know about him was that he was both a black man and not heterosexual. He was literate and held a high position of authority. He was also deeply spiritual and was seeking to know God.
Thank God for the the story of this one human being.
Rev. Ken
An ordained priest.
I didn't equate the consensus of the world. I accurately did the theology and membership of Christians. Nothing you pontificated on changes that.

The 'vast consensus' of a flat earth was the science of the time. Scripture never says 'flat'.

You insinuate a brief, sad period of American history with all of Christianity. Dishonest once again. The book of Philemon is a clear argument against slavery. Moreover, it was then and is now Christians who fought against slavery. Look who is on the front lines against sex trafficking right now. No one else did or does now.

Again you expose your heresy with false claims. Scripture clearly and consistently prohibits women in formal positions of authority over men. Mary and Mary were not in such positions. Moreover, it was what Jesus practiced.

As to the Ethiopian, here is what Jesus said,

Matthew 19:12 (NASB)
"For there are eunuchs who were born that way from their mother's womb; and there are eunuchs who were made eunuchs by men; and there are also eunuchs who made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. He who is able to accept this, let him accept it."

Which one are you talking about?

You may be a priest, but clearly not in the Church of Jesus Christ.

Smile.

Since: Aug 09

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#16183
Jan 27, 2013
 

Judged:

3

3

3

KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
I didn't equate the consensus of the world. I accurately did the theology and membership of Christians. Nothing you pontificated on changes that.
The 'vast consensus' of a flat earth was the science of the time. Scripture never says 'flat'.
You insinuate a brief, sad period of American history with all of Christianity. Dishonest once again. The book of Philemon is a clear argument against slavery. Moreover, it was then and is now Christians who fought against slavery. Look who is on the front lines against sex trafficking right now. No one else did or does now.
Again you expose your heresy with false claims. Scripture clearly and consistently prohibits women in formal positions of authority over men. Mary and Mary were not in such positions. Moreover, it was what Jesus practiced.
As to the Ethiopian, here is what Jesus said,
Matthew 19:12 (NASB)
"For there are eunuchs who were born that way from their mother's womb; and there are eunuchs who were made eunuchs by men; and there are also eunuchs who made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. He who is able to accept this, let him accept it."
Which one are you talking about?
You may be a priest, but clearly not in the Church of Jesus Christ.
Smile.
LOL!!!.... No.-I- EQUATED THE CONSENSUS OF THE WORLD - to show just how worthless an argument can be when based upon a peculiarly misguided consensus. Any "vast consensus" can be erroneous, just as the "vast consensus" in which you have put your faith has all too frequently been shown to be!

The letter of Paul to Philemon is not a discussion of the institution of slavery, which, in other texts had already been shown to be acceptable. It is in reference to an individual. Read your bible.

As for flatness, scripture says that God said, "Let there be lights in the dome of the sky ..." implying that the expanse of dry land, which is earth, existed before the hanging of the "lights." They were not understood to be stars of the cosmic deep.

So, Dear Smiley, you are full of Baloney.

I do not relish ridiculing anyone; unless they persist in trying to push the innocent and ostracized among us into a detrimental position.

Jesus tells us, repeatedly, to protect the children. Jesus shows us repeatedly to regard our mothers, sisters, significant others, wives, daughters and the entire female population with absolute respect.

There is a reason why Jesus did as his mother asked at the Wedding in Cana. This was his first miracle. In spite of his reticence and objections, he did as he was asked.

Later, when the sisters, Mary and Martha, hosted the "inner circle" disciples, Martha complained that Mary would not help with the chores of hospitality. Jesus was not sympathetic to Martha. Instead, he stated with obvious conviction that Mary was exactly where she was SUPPOSED to be, taking in the Teachings!- and for what purpose?

Everyone who was there taking in the Teachings was there so that they could later propagate the dissemination of the Gospel.

It is the height of patristic arrogance and a willful denial to continue to hold that women are incapable of holding any specific office of spiritual guidance or to competently conduct the Ministry of the Gospel of Christ Jesus. They have proven their full capability. They now serve and are welcome in the priesthood at every level.

I am sorry that you feel that you have to deny a significant part of the reality that exists in Christ Jesus. You have effectively locked yourself into the past. But, that is where you feel comfortable. Until you make the commitment necessary to accept the truth, you will continue to blindly hold misconceptions.

Jesus said, "I am the Way, the truth and the life...."

When you are ready to upgrade your understanding, we will be ready in the Spirit to answer.

Rev. Ken

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#16184
Jan 28, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

RevKen wrote:
<quoted text>
LOL!!!.... No.-I- EQUATED THE CONSENSUS OF THE WORLD - to show just how worthless an argument can be when based upon a peculiarly misguided consensus. Any "vast consensus" can be erroneous, just as the "vast consensus" in which you have put your faith has all too frequently been shown to be!
The letter of Paul to Philemon is not a discussion of the institution of slavery, which, in other texts had already been shown to be acceptable. It is in reference to an individual. Read your bible.
As for flatness, scripture says that God said, "Let there be lights in the dome of the sky ..." implying that the expanse of dry land, which is earth, existed before the hanging of the "lights." They were not understood to be stars of the cosmic deep.
So, Dear Smiley, you are full of Baloney.
I do not relish ridiculing anyone; unless they persist in trying to push the innocent and ostracized among us into a detrimental position.
Jesus tells us, repeatedly, to protect the children. Jesus shows us repeatedly to regard our mothers, sisters, significant others, wives, daughters and the entire female population with absolute respect.
There is a reason why Jesus did as his mother asked at the Wedding in Cana. This was his first miracle. In spite of his reticence and objections, he did as he was asked.
Later, when the sisters, Mary and Martha, hosted the "inner circle" disciples, Martha complained that Mary would not help with the chores of hospitality. Jesus was not sympathetic to Martha. Instead, he stated with obvious conviction that Mary was exactly where she was SUPPOSED to be, taking in the Teachings!- and for what purpose?
Everyone who was there taking in the Teachings was there so that they could later propagate the dissemination of the Gospel.
It is the height of patristic arrogance and a willful denial to continue to hold that women are incapable of holding any specific office of spiritual guidance or to competently conduct the Ministry of the Gospel of Christ Jesus. They have proven their full capability. They now serve and are welcome in the priesthood at every level.
...we will be ready in the spirit of deception to answer.
Rev. Ken
I know exactly what you tried to 'equate'. Your Christian theology isn't judged by the world, it's judged by the Word. Like I said, those who know the Word judge you a heretic.

The message of the Bible is that sin brings slavery. Not God's design at all. Jesus brings freedom, and that is exemplified by history. Philemon is the message of a slave becoming a brother.

Respect goes to all people. Authority does not. Jesus obeyed his mother as a child, and respected her as an adult. The context of the Martha and Mary incident is that they were there to serve Jesus and the disciples. You once again falsely equate the desire to hear God speak with His commission of Disciples. Clearly Mary and Martha were not included in the latter.

The prohibition of formal positions of authority by women over men is clearly stated at the end of I Tim 2. Immediately formal positions in the Church follow in I Tim 3.

I am simply and accurately stating the consistent teachings of God's Word and the practice that followed. You have created a self designed theology where your god does your bidding and submits to your understanding. You clearly have the stature of a god confused with yourself.

But please, try another example from God's Word that equates gender authority.

Meanwhile rev., here is a question for you. If there were a group of women in a church with specific needs and problems, according to Biblical instruction, who would you appoint to assist them? All women? All men? Or mixed?

Smile.

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

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

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.

•••
•••