Homosexuality and the Bible

Homosexuality and the Bible

There are 35945 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.

Cal

Pekin, IL

#18277 Jun 1, 2013
RevKen wrote:
<quoted text>
LMFAO!!!!....(The F stands for Friar.)
Nope.
You have reversed the Hebrew logic in order to preserve your bigoted, hypocritical views.
Furthermore, you deny the potentials given for you to develop in your own Spirit made in the "Image" of God.
But, what you are unable to do, despite your venomous and vociferous denials, is deny anyone else's right and choice to have their union recognized. In this, you are impotent; just as impotent as a Voudoo witch.
Rev. Ken
Do you really think your lies about being a priest or friar somehow mask the fact that your posts are illogical and anti-Christian?

The Bible repeatedly condemns all homosexual behavior in the plainest of terms. You oppose the Bible, so you are not a Christian.

“Busting Kimare's”

Since: Feb 13

Clitty

#18278 Jun 1, 2013
KiMare wrote:
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
I simply stated what the Bible says.
That is conviction of sin you feel. Take it to God who designed and pronounced marriage between a man and a woman.
You are right about this, you won't be answering to me, but you will be to God.
Says the deformed cynic who left his denomination because they were too liberal for him.

God doesn't care who I'm committed to; he's more concerned with you trying to F over people by spreading lies and hatred under the guise of religious intellect.

Uve

Since: Nov 12

Location hidden

#18279 Jun 1, 2013
Cal wrote:
<quoted text>Do you really think your lies about being a priest or friar somehow mask the fact that your posts are illogical and anti-Christian?
The Bible repeatedly condemns all homosexual behavior in the plainest of terms. You oppose the Bible, so you are not a Christian.
Eat Shellfish or sew on Sunday David?

Since: Aug 09

Location hidden

#18280 Jun 1, 2013
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
If by Hebrew logic, you mean Pharisaical, yes, I have rejected it.
And yes, I reject making God in the image of man.
However, I have denied no one the 'right' to design their own relationship, even in violation of God's command. I have simply and factually distinguished between ss couples and marriage.
The impotence, noted before by your fruitless churches, is all yours. The irony is, you even endorse a fruitless relationship. Something even science condemns as a defect. You fulfill scriptures note that species produce 'after their kind'. In your churches and the desecrated relationship you endorse, the end.
LOL!!!... You have "simply and factually distinguished ...?"
Well,... that's the problem, isn't it? Spreading your simple BS as far as you can and then trying to smoothly layer multiple assertions over it doesn't change the problem you have with the first and most simple layer being composed of BS.

No. By Hebrew logic, I mean the Hebrew Creation Story presented through their understanding of the relationship between God, Mankind and Creation. Their understanding is mystical - Qabbalist in esoteric Judaism.

You have not rejected the Pharisaic view at all. You have endorsed it! Your attempt to distance yourself from Pharisaic dogma is a laugh. That kind of view, using Mosaic Law to establish your concepts of marriage and its scriptural underpinnings, is very much the "Pharisaic" view.

Secondly, you do not reject making God in the image of man. In fact, you repeatedly try to put across the idea that only the iconic ideal of man and woman can demonstrate a proper concept of God, thereby directly boxing the "image" of God into the shape of your iconic concept. In other words, you are doing precisely what you deny that you do, which is to create a "graven" image.

Then, in your very next sentence, you hypocritically contradict yourself by denying that you would dictate another's right to define one's relationship to God and in the same breath state that they do so "in violation of God's command!" - which is to foist guilt and death upon another's emergence into the Light of Christ.

You have not distinguished between same-sex couples and marriage. All you have managed to do is to reveal your bigoted, hypocritical, "Pharisaic-like" position.

I can certainly see why you try to gain traction and put away any idea of your impotence in the establishment of your conceptual views. Unfortunately, the more you try to foist these ideas on others, the more you reveal the flaws and hypocrisy of your thought.

There is no irony at all in the acceptance of the sacrament of Marriage as it relates to same-sex couples. Their spiritual, psychical, emotional and physical selves are a matter of Self-recognition, which is a personally understood determination.

Every one of us makes this determination on our own.

Endorsing a "fruitless relationship?" Another of your simplistic, hypocritical layers of BS. By that logic, any couple who cannot first show that they can successfully procreate through fertile egg and spermatazoa as a result of copulation is automatically to be classified a "fruitless relationship" undeserving of the Blessing of the Holy Spirit in the sacrament of Marriage.
Pure, unadulterated Hogwash, bud.

"Science condemns ...?" Nope. Another of your misguided weavings. Science is a discipline of experiment and observation. It condemns nothing. Even so, by conclusive evidence, it cannot yet determine the path of communication between God and Human or define the fullness of a melding of souls, whether heterosexual by definition or by any other matching of persons, including the same-sex couple.

Lastly, as to your post above, your attempt at prophetic conclusion is just another of your Voudoo-like pronouncements;

Not true from the get-go and impotent in their effect except for those few who want to believe what you are saying.

Rev. Ken
Reverend Shaw

Netherlands

#18281 Jun 1, 2013
Though I love our merciful Lord we cannot discriminate against others due to our beliefs. The bible promotes incest on numerous occasions, tells people who eat too much to slit their throat and other such things we view as insanity today, why is the bible's view on homosexuals not also viewed that way? Bearing in mind that we Christians break a commandment every time we worship at a church as we worship a false idol, being an artists/sculptur's impression of Jesus
Phil

Pekin, IL

#18282 Jun 1, 2013
TheVeryUnReverend Shaw wrote:
Though I love our merciful Lord we cannot discriminate against others due to our beliefs. The bible promotes incest on numerous occasions, tells people who eat too much to slit their throat and other such things we view as insanity today, why is the bible's view on homosexuals not also viewed that way? Bearing in mind that we Christians break a commandment every time we worship at a church as we worship a false idol, being an artists/sculptur's impression of Jesus
Lying bigot.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#18283 Jun 1, 2013
RevKen wrote:
<quoted text>
LOL!!!... You have "simply and factually distinguished ...?"
Well,... that's the problem, isn't it? Spreading your simple BS as far as you can and then trying to smoothly layer multiple assertions over it doesn't change the problem you have with the first and most simple layer being composed of BS.
No. By Hebrew logic, I mean the Hebrew Creation Story presented through their understanding of the relationship between God, Mankind and Creation. Their understanding is mystical - Qabbalist in esoteric Judaism.
You have not rejected the Pharisaic view at all. You have endorsed it! Your attempt to distance yourself from Pharisaic dogma is a laugh. That kind of view, using Mosaic Law to establish your concepts of marriage and its scriptural underpinnings, is very much the "Pharisaic" view.
Secondly, you do not reject making God in the image of man. In fact, you repeatedly try to put across the idea that only the iconic ideal of man and woman can demonstrate a proper concept of God, thereby directly boxing the "image" of God into the shape of your iconic concept. In other words, you are doing precisely what you deny that you do, which is to create a "graven" image.
Then, in your very next sentence, you hypocritically contradict yourself by denying that you would dictate another's right to define one's relationship to God and in the same breath state that they do so "in violation of God's command!" - which is to foist guilt and death upon another's emergence into the Light of Christ.
You have not distinguished between same-sex couples and marriage. All you have managed to do is to reveal your bigoted, hypocritical, "Pharisaic-like" position.
I can certainly see why you try to gain traction and put away any idea of your impotence in the establishment of your conceptual views. Unfortunately, the more you try to foist these ideas on others, the more you reveal the flaws and hypocrisy of your thought.
There is no irony at all in the acceptance of the sacrament of Marriage as it relates to same-sex couples. Their spiritual, psychical, emotional and physical selves are a matter of Self-recognition, which is a personally understood determination.
Every one of us makes this determination on our own.
Endorsing a "fruitless relationship?" Another of your simplistic, hypocritical layers of BS. By that logic, any couple who cannot first show that they can successfully procreate through fertile egg and spermatazoa as a result of copulation is automatically to be classified a "fruitless relationship" undeserving of the Blessing of the Holy Spirit in the sacrament of Marriage.
Pure, unadulterated Hogwash, bud.
"Science condemns ...?" Nope. Another of your misguided weavings. Science is a discipline of experiment and observation. It condemns nothing. Even so, by conclusive evidence, it cannot yet determine the path of communication between God and Human or define the fullness of a melding of souls, whether heterosexual by definition or by any other matching of persons, including the same-sex couple.
Lastly, as to your post above, your attempt at prophetic conclusion is just another of your Voudoo-like pronouncements;
Not true from the get-go and impotent in their effect except for those few who want to believe what you are saying.
Rev. Ken
According to you, it doesn't mean what it says, it means just the opposite... or anything you want it to mean.

I almost wish you were an engineer building planes, rather than a purported rev, guiding eternal destiny. The consequences would be quick and lessor.

Since: Feb 09

Location hidden

#18285 Jun 2, 2013
mmmmyes wrote:
I have been following this thread for quite some time, posted a couple, and would love to ask a question of some of the more religious based folks. I understand you find homosexuality to be a sin, and that being the case, of a homosexual is not able to repent or whatever to abolish their homosexuality what do you suggest they do with their lives? Do you advoate colonizing them in a world of their own? Abolishing their "kind" because they do not meet your requirements? Just curious. Thank you to anyone who takes the ti me to addr4ess my question
You ask a very interesting question. However it isn't that our Pew Warmers find homosexuality to be a sin, they read in the Bible that it is a sin and they believe about 6 verses in the Bible, the rest they give the finger to. I find it unlikely that any of those you addressed your post to will respond as their sole purpose in this thread is to cause dissension and to try to get gays to feel bad about the homosexual desires they were born with.

In the Bible BibleGod demands that our resident bigots put gays to death. Of course like everything in the Bible it is contradicted by other verses which leaves the Pew Warmer to let the Con-artist at the front of their church to decide which side of the contradiction they are going to go with.

BibleGod HATES what our resident pew warmers do here:

Prov. 6:16 says, "there are 6 things the Lord hates, seven that are detestable to him" and the 19th verse says one of these is, "...a false witness who pours out lies and a man who stirs up dissension among brothers."

And in contradiction to those 6 deadly to gays, anti gay verses the Scriptures tell us:

Romans 14:14,[MARY] "There is nothing un-natural of itself."

Homosexuality is NOT unnatural.

Matt. 18:19-20,[GW] "I can guarantee again that if two of you agree on anything here on earth, my Father in heaven will accept it.

As long as gay sex is consenting God accepts it.

Ecclesiastes 3:1, "There is a time for everything, and a season for every activity under heaven:"

And there is a time for homosexuality and a season for sodomy.

I too would like one of the pew warming bigots to tell us what they believe gays should do, just for the comic relief. I believe once several years ago one of them did pause for a moment from a moment of clarity and told us she thought that gays could be gay but not have gay sex ever.

This simple minded moron was divorced from reality because of her campaign to appear as a being knowledgeable of God.

Since: Feb 09

Location hidden

#18286 Jun 2, 2013
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
According to you, it doesn't mean what it says, it means just the opposite... or anything you want it to mean.
I almost wish you were an engineer building planes, rather than a purported rev, guiding eternal destiny. The consequences would be quick and lessor.
You are here for one reason and one reason only KiMare and that is to give God the finger. You hate God so much and you despise what he tells you, yet being a pew warming hypocrite who violates the demands the Bible put on you you just ignore everything that is uncomfortable.

Prov. 6:16 says, "there are 6 things the Lord hates, seven that are detestable to him" and the 19th verse says one of these is, "...a false witness who pours out lies and a man who stirs up dissension among brothers."

What part of that do you refuse to understand?

Since: Feb 09

Location hidden

#18287 Jun 2, 2013
Phil wrote:
<quoted text>Lying bigot.
Well, well, well. Our darling Pekin, Il is back with more hate for God.

There is only one reason you are posting here and it is important that you know, acknowledge and accept that God hates you.

Prov. 6:16 says, "there are 6 things the Lord hates, seven that are detestable to him" and the 19th verse says one of these is, "...a false witness who pours out lies and a man who stirs up dissension among brothers."

What part of that do you refuse to understand?

Since: Feb 09

Location hidden

#18288 Jun 2, 2013
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
The Bible does not condemn homosexuality. It condemns immorality (behavior).
It restricts sexual activity to marriage between a man and woman.
OT Law commands men to behave like men, and women to behave like women.
I believe Jesus was talking about homosexuals in Matthew 19 when he spoke of those 'born eunuchs'.
No one cares what you believe KiMare! You trust a book that tells us the bat is a bird, the sun went backwards in the sky and the round earth has four corners. And countless thousands of other errors, mistakes, fallacies and contradictions. The Bible can not be trusted to tell us about homosexuality and you know it.

No where is sexual activity restricted, indeed, just the opposite!

Matt. 18:19-20,[GW] "I can guarantee again that if two of you agree on anything here on earth, my Father in heaven will accept it.

Jesus guarantees that if two men agree to have sodomy with one another that God in heaven will accept it. The verse does not say except homosexuality and homosexuals it says "agree on ANYTHING"!

Do you realize how stupid you look when you select one verse to promote and another to ignore and pretend it does not exist?

No, I guess you don't, that would require an IQ with a number higher than your shoe size.

Since: Feb 09

Location hidden

#18289 Jun 2, 2013
)--For hundreds of years biblicists have been lecturing people on the importance of adhering to the Bible's teachings on ethics, manners, and morality. They quote Jesus and Paul profusely, with a liberal sprinkling of Old Testament moralisms. The problem with their approach lies not only in an oft-noted failure to practice what they preach, but an equally pronounced tendency to ignore what the Bible itself, preaches. Biblicists practice what can only be described as "selective morality". What they like, they expound; what they don't like, they ignore, even though the validity or strength of one is no less than that of the other. That which is palatable and acceptable is supposedly applicable to all; while that which is obnoxious, inconvenient, or self-denying is only applicable to those addressed 2,000 years ago. They enjoy quoting the Ten Commandments, the Sermon on the Mount, and some of Paul's preachings, for example, but don't pretend to heed other, equally valid, maxims.

Uve

Since: Nov 12

Location hidden

#18290 Jun 2, 2013
Phil wrote:
<quoted text>Lying bigot.
Calling the kettle black?

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#18291 Jun 2, 2013
Uve wrote:
<quoted text>
Eat Shellfish or sew on Sunday David?
David dreams of eating dick.

“Busting Kimare's”

Since: Feb 13

Clitty

#18292 Jun 2, 2013
WasteWater wrote:
<quoted text>
David dreams of eating dick.
I dream of him choking on it.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#18293 Jun 2, 2013
Reverend Alan wrote:
<quoted text>
You are here for one reason and one reason only KiMare and that is to give God the finger. You hate God so much and you despise what he tells you, yet being a pew warming hypocrite who violates the demands the Bible put on you you just ignore everything that is uncomfortable.
Prov. 6:16 says, "there are 6 things the Lord hates, seven that are detestable to him" and the 19th verse says one of these is, "...a false witness who pours out lies and a man who stirs up dissension among brothers."
What part of that do you refuse to understand?
Sorry to break this to you, but you are not God.

SS couples will only ever be a mutually sterile pointlessly duplicate gendered half of marriage.
Kom2

Miami, FL

#18294 Jun 2, 2013
My friends, if a man lays with man, it is a sin. As the same with a woman lying with another woman.

I Have Returned.

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#18296 Jun 2, 2013
Kom2 wrote:
My friends, if a man lays with man, it is a sin. As the same with a woman lying with another woman.
I Have Returned.
BS.

“Busting Kimare's”

Since: Feb 13

Clitty

#18297 Jun 2, 2013
Pepper wrote:
<quoted text>
I hope you choke on the next d!ck you su:ck
No gag reflex, darling. It serves me well.

“ WOOF ! ”

Since: Nov 12

Coolidge, AZ

#18298 Jun 2, 2013
Kom2 wrote:
My friends, if a man lays with man, it is a sin. As the same with a woman lying with another woman.
I Have Returned.
I agree. That's why when I have sex with a guy, I ALWAYS have sex on my knees so as to not violate that rule !

:)

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 Feds' transgender guidance provokes fierce back... 5 min Ronald 977
News Johnny Depp's response to Amber's divorce reque... 1 hr Friend of Amber 1
News Minnesota becomes 12th state to OK gay marriage (May '13) 2 hr cpeter1313 1,872
News Pope Francis eases way for divorced Catholics w... 9 hr truth 55
News Wedding: Sandra and Tito Gutierrez 10 hr anon 2
News What would Jesus say about same-sex marriage? (Jul '15) 19 hr WasteWater 4,199
News Tony Perkins claims churches will lose federal ... (May '15) Thu Tony Perkins Faith 8
More from around the web