Homosexuality and the Bible

Homosexuality and the Bible

There are 36060 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.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#21653 Oct 27, 2013
akopen wrote:
<quoted text>
I guess that you have been doing just that and I might add with little success. You best stick to your old ways. Leave the discussion so others can concentrate on the real truth.
I'm content with my responses, and you just conceded a failure to match your ideas to God's Word.

Not the first time the rev or you have been frustrated with equating your words to His Word.

Smirk.

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#21654 Oct 27, 2013
really?

Since: Jun 13

Anchorage, AK

#21655 Oct 27, 2013
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
Matthew 5:27-32 (NASB)
27 "You have heard that it was said,'YOU SHALL NOT COMMIT ADULTERY';
28 but I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman with lust for her has already committed adultery with her in his heart.
29 "If your right eye makes you stumble, tear it out and throw it from you; for it is better for you to lose one of the parts of your body, than for your whole body to be thrown into hell.
30 "If your right hand makes you stumble, cut it off and throw it from you; for it is better for you to lose one of the parts of your body, than for your whole body to go into hell.
31 "It was said,'WHOEVER SENDS HIS WIFE AWAY, LET HIM GIVE HER A CERTIFICATE OF DIVORCE';
32 but I say to you that everyone who divorces his wife, except for the reason of unchastity, makes her commit adultery; and whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery.
Where does homosexual sex and calling ss couples married fit in this?
How dense can you get KiMare. I have said this over and over. The answer to your argument is that Matthew 5: 27-31 is not about what constitutes a marriage nor is it about homosexuality. Homosexuality is therefore has nothing to do with this passage. Further, I have stated that the Bible neither supports nor condemns homosexuality. Back to your argument. Again, as I have said before, so now I will stay with more theological terms. You won't get it anyway.

5: 27-31 is about adultery but the overall message has everything to do with the Law and the Gospel. Notice that with the Gospel everything changes but the question is how do you see this change. So far, you don't. The value of the Law (that is from the perspective of Judaism) Jesus could not accept. The Law was not the terminus of revelation.

All this, so far, means that this is a reflection on the development of Christianity. The development is the understanding the Christian had to develop along with the Law. The Law was what this Jewish community understood. The Gospel is therefore about the singularity of sin whereas the Law is about the pluralism of sin. What does that mean? Singularity can be summed up in the Greatest Commandment. One commandment to, say Ten Commandments. Singular vs. plural.

So, what does that mean for this passage?“Jesus does not attend to the penalties prescribed in the Law for adultery, which was normally a capital crime (Dt 22:22). Neither does he mention illicit sexual relations that are not adulterous, although these are treated of in the Law. 28.“looks with lust:” As in the discussion of murder, the supreme offense is taken as the point beyond which Jesus advances. The statement is brief; the gaze of lustful desire is as guilty as the adulterous action. The lustful gaze is mentioned very frequently in the rabbinical literature, and it is reprobated with scarcely less vigor than we find in the Gospel passage 9Str-B I, 298-301). The restatement of the Law is directed again at the roots of the impulse.” JBC[43-37].

What does this “root of impulse” mean? If it has nothing to do with the Law except that “looks of lust” then there is no concern about the illicit sexual relations. The Law showed little concern with the “looks of lust.” So why does Jesus focus on the “looks of lust?” The “root of impulse” then is where the heart is as opposed to any illicit action.

Now, I've come full circle. The Greatest Commandment, where love is the concern, it is the act that is not the “look of lust.”

If you disagree, KiMare, then you need address each and every issue you disagree with. You need to present an argument that defines your disagreement. If you cannot your personal opinion carries no weight.

Since: Jun 13

Anchorage, AK

#21656 Oct 27, 2013
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
You are contradicting yourself. You said the passage was not about marriage, and yet Jesus spoke of divorce. You can't have it both ways.
Tell you what, you rewrite the passage so Jesus clearly says what you claim he says.
Smile.


This is not an exercise in literalism. Everything stated in relevant to a modern translation. I just posted my argument.

Since: Jun 13

Anchorage, AK

#21657 Oct 27, 2013
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
I'm content with my responses, and you just conceded a failure to match your ideas to God's Word.
Not the first time the rev or you have been frustrated with equating your words to His Word.
Smirk.
No frustration. Your illiteracy regarding the Bible gives you no validation. Did I not post an answer to you about literalism? This was your request.

But of course, you don't believe anything beyond your faith.

I've said that I don't post for you but for others.

Since: Jun 13

Anchorage, AK

#21658 Oct 27, 2013
Selecia Jones- JAX FL wrote:
really?
He really is, Selecia.

“Busting Kimare's”

Since: Feb 13

Clitty

#21659 Oct 27, 2013
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
I'm content with my responses....
because you're merely trolling. You do, in fact, know that the Bible says nothing at all about SS loving relationship.

You're an ass-troll, KiMerde, whose only existence here is to yank chains. You've readily admitted as much so it's no surprise to us.

Since: Jun 13

Anchorage, AK

#21661 Oct 27, 2013
For Sure wrote:
<quoted text>
Rev. [email protected], you still spewing bible verses to help cover up your obsession of young little boys??
Song of Solomon speaks of premarital sex and uses terms of nature to speak of things modern society considers vulgar.

http://www.topix.com/forum/news/sex/T5PPFGTUV...
Fools begone

Milsons Point, Australia

#21662 Oct 27, 2013
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
*same old stupid shit, redacted for clarity*
In case you missed it stupid, this is the Human Sexuality Forum on Potix. WTF are you doing here trying to peddle your fucked-up religious notions to people who could not give a shit about your puerile, archaic and repressive views?
There are plenty of forums elsewhere that you can bark away in all you like.
Off you go now, boy, ta-ta.

“ WOOF ! ”

Since: Nov 12

Coolidge, AZ

#21663 Oct 27, 2013
Fools begone wrote:
<quoted text>
In case you missed it stupid, this is the Human Sexuality Forum on Potix. WTF are you doing here trying to peddle your fucked-up religious notions to people who could not give a shit about your puerile, archaic and repressive views?
There are plenty of forums elsewhere that you can bark away in all you like.
Off you go now, boy, ta-ta.
Actually, this is NOT "the Human Sexuality Forum on Potix." This is the "Gay/Lesbian Forum" on "Topix". I guess when you live upside down you get confused... Poor little maroon.....

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#21664 Oct 28, 2013
akopen wrote:
<quoted text>
How dense can you get KiMare. I have said this over and over. The answer to your argument is that Matthew 5: 27-31 is not about what constitutes a marriage nor is it about homosexuality. Homosexuality is therefore has nothing to do with this passage. Further, I have stated that the Bible neither supports nor condemns homosexuality. Back to your argument. Again, as I have said before, so now I will stay with more theological terms. You won't get it anyway.
5: 27-31 is about adultery but the overall message has everything to do with the Law and the Gospel. Notice that with the Gospel everything changes but the question is how do you see this change. So far, you don't. The value of the Law (that is from the perspective of Judaism) Jesus could not accept. The Law was not the terminus of revelation.
All this, so far, means that this is a reflection on the development of Christianity. The development is the understanding the Christian had to develop along with the Law. The Law was what this Jewish community understood. The Gospel is therefore about the singularity of sin whereas the Law is about the pluralism of sin. What does that mean? Singularity can be summed up in the Greatest Commandment. One commandment to, say Ten Commandments. Singular vs. plural.
So, what does that mean for this passage?“Jesus does not attend to the penalties prescribed in the Law for adultery, which was normally a capital crime (Dt 22:22). Neither does he mention illicit sexual relations that are not adulterous, although these are treated of in the Law. 28.“looks with lust:” As in the discussion of murder, the supreme offense is taken as the point beyond which Jesus advances. The statement is brief; the gaze of lustful desire is as guilty as the adulterous action. The lustful gaze is mentioned very frequently in the rabbinical literature, and it is reprobated with scarcely less vigor than we find in the Gospel passage 9Str-B I, 298-301). The restatement of the Law is directed again at the roots of the impulse.” JBC[43-37].
What does this “root of impulse” mean? If it has nothing to do with the Law except that “looks of lust” then there is no concern about the illicit sexual relations. The Law showed little concern with the “looks of lust.” So why does Jesus focus on the “looks of lust?” The “root of impulse” then is where the heart is as opposed to any illicit action.
Now, I've come full circle. The Greatest Commandment, where love is the concern, it is the act that is not the “look of lust.”
If you disagree, KiMare, then you need address each and every issue you disagree with. You need to present an argument that defines your disagreement. If you cannot your personal opinion carries no weight.
What I clearly see is that the passage IS about marriage and morality, and your denial is foolish and totally senseless in the context of the passage AND other statements about the Law by Jesus.

I also see absolutely NO room for gay sex or calling ss couples married.

Your idiocy is fully exposed as you futilely try to make 'become one flesh' into 'the look of lust'! Do you understand how foolish that claim is???

What I wonder is why did Jesus wait until you came along to explain what he really meant?

Smile.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#21665 Oct 28, 2013
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
You are contradicting yourself. You said the passage was not about marriage, and yet Jesus spoke of divorce. You can't have it both ways.
Tell you what, you rewrite the passage so Jesus clearly says what you claim he says.
Smile.
akopen wrote:
<quoted text>
This is not an exercise in literalism. Everything stated in relevant to a modern translation. I just posted my argument.
In other words, the passage we are discussing has nothing to do with your position. In fact, none of the Bible has anything to do with your belief.

I agree.

Smile.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#21666 Oct 28, 2013
Dusty Mangina wrote:
<quoted text>
because you're merely trolling. You do, in fact, know that the Bible says nothing at all about SS loving relationship.
You're an ass-troll, KiMerde, whose only existence here is to yank chains. You've readily admitted as much so it's no surprise to us.
The only chain I yank is denial.

Your bell is ringing, when will you answer the door?

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#21667 Oct 28, 2013
Fools begone wrote:
<quoted text>
In case you missed it stupid, this is the Human Sexuality Forum on Potix. WTF are you doing here trying to peddle your fucked-up religious notions to people who could not give a shit about your puerile, archaic and repressive views?
There are plenty of forums elsewhere that you can bark away in all you like.
Off you go now, boy, ta-ta.
No.

Here is something scientific for you to face;

Real marriage has always been and will always be a committed relationship between one man and one woman. Demanding it ain't so doesn't make it so.

It is the only relationship that reproduces naturally, a father and mother raising their children.

It is the only relationship that is the birthing place of every single other type of relationship.

It is the only relationship that reunites two completely unique parts. A complimentary union, instead of a duplicated half.

It is the only relationship that sexually fit together by design. There is no abusive violation of design.

It is the only relationship that restores a male and female to the very original roots of our creation, pre-gender.

It is the only union that blends two different genders bringing perfect balance. A same gender union lacks diversity and is off balance.

All this says nothing about the cultural, historic and religious distinctions that marriage wholly embraces.

It clearly has, needs and deserves a special and unique definition. It is absurd and sacrilegious to equate ss couples.

“RAINBOW POWER!”

Since: Oct 08

I Am What I Am.

#21668 Oct 28, 2013
Reverend Alan wrote:
Can one imagine if all adulterers were put to death!
LOL! Then we might actually have an underpopulation problem and be in danger of extinction!
SHADOW

Canyon Lake, TX

#21670 Oct 28, 2013
Wolfgang E B wrote:
<quoted text>
You've made your personal dislike of anal sex clear many times. Your apparent need to assert your opinion on this matter over and over again suggests that you have some underlying issues regarding it. You should probably consult a professional on the matter.
Oh Baloney! Nothing but the truthand that scares you.
Anal sex is inherently harmful, unhealthy and demeaning.
Clearly irrefutable evidence of a sexual defect and the failure of evolutionary mating behavior.

If there were no anal sex we wouldn't have gender confused perverts like you.

Since: Aug 09

Location hidden

#21671 Oct 28, 2013
SHADOW wrote:
<quoted text>
Oh Baloney! Nothing but the truthand that scares you.
Anal sex is inherently harmful, unhealthy and demeaning.
Clearly irrefutable evidence of a sexual defect and the failure of evolutionary mating behavior.
If there were no anal sex we wouldn't have gender confused perverts like you.
Here we have Kimare's sock puppet.

Tell us, sock puppet, just how much thought Kimare puts into his bogus assertions, since you have no thoughts of your own in these matters.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#21672 Oct 28, 2013
RevKen wrote:
<quoted text>
Here we have Kimare's sock puppet.
Tell us, sock puppet, just how much thought Kimare puts into his bogus assertions, since you have no thoughts of your own in these matters.
Rev, rev, rev, such hate and lies!

I hold no claim to the simple unadulterated truth. That is the fundamental facts about anal sex. I've posted proof many times, and you have never had a reasoned rebuttal, only denial.

You are asking him to join you in deceit! How evil is that!

Since: Aug 09

Location hidden

#21673 Oct 28, 2013
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
No.
Here is something scientific for you to face;
Real marriage has always been and will always be a committed relationship between one man and one woman. Demanding it ain't so doesn't make it so.
It is the only relationship that reproduces naturally, a father and mother raising their children.
It is the only relationship that is the birthing place of every single other type of relationship.
It is the only relationship that reunites two completely unique parts. A complimentary union, instead of a duplicated half.
It is the only relationship that sexually fit together by design. There is no abusive violation of design.
It is the only relationship that restores a male and female to the very original roots of our creation, pre-gender.
It is the only union that blends two different genders bringing perfect balance. A same gender union lacks diversity and is off balance.
All this says nothing about the cultural, historic and religious distinctions that marriage wholly embraces.
It clearly has, needs and deserves a special and unique definition. It is absurd and sacrilegious to equate ss couples.
What a bunch of self-opinion-affirming Baloney!

A committed relationship between one man and one woman does not require marriage nor does it constitute marriage. It is the cause for the development OF marriage, a civil and sacerdotal recognition. Not the other way around.

It certainly is NOT the only relationship that reproduces naturally. In fact no relationship is necessary at all. Two strangers can meet by happenstance in a strawberry patch, have sex and never see each other again. No relationship - a child is produced, anyway. No father and mother raising the child.

"... every single other type of relationship."
You mean such as a same-sex relationship? So, you acknowledge the same-sex relationship as having arisen out of a "heterosexual relationship," yet you claim such a relationship cannot be legitimate and natural even though the relationship which caused it and led to it IS legitimate and natural?

"... two completely unique [complimentary] parts."
You mean that two completely unique souls who find mutually satisfactory attraction and intimacy and complimentary lives with each other are "an abusive violation of design?" Not to each other, they aren't. Ask them.

"Pre-gender?" According to Jesus, such "pre-gender" existence is found in Heaven, where marriage no longer exists and neither man nor woman is given to each other. If so, why do you obsess over the formation of a same-sex couple, as a matter of the mutual acceptance of each other, in this plane of existence. Jesus didn't.

"All this says nothing about the cultural, historic and religious distinctions that marriage wholly embraces." Yes, that's true.
And now, we are changing the cultural, historic and religious distinctions that marriage wholly embraces in order to accommodate the same-sex relationship, also.

It is the right thing to do.

We will Marry them, civilly and spiritually.

We will Bless them.

We will wish them the very best. And if they want to have children, by any means, including adoption and diverse medical procedures that employ one or both sets of their DNA, we will accommodate them.

And God will lovingly accept both the couple and their children.

Rev. Ken
Autumnglow

Köln, Germany

#21674 Oct 28, 2013
I guess I'm somewhere between the "Gutmenschen" (Do-gooders)and the gay-haters who want to "swipe the Sodomites from the face of the earth". One should distinguish between the "professional gays", who reckon everything they do or don't do by "being gay", as if the usual rules didn't apply to them for some reason and the ones who are leading pretty standard lifes and just happen to go for something else than the majority when their pants come off at night. But!: Children have no place with a a homosexual couple: Their make-believe-game just isn't good enough for a real kid, the kid will sense that something is wrong long before the adults do. And what are the options for such a kid to change it's situation? Keine.None.A child is not a cute, little pet: It will grow up and wonder about it's parents and it will be more than happy when they're a straight couple and Dad is really a man and Mom is really a woman, who brought it into the world.

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 Gay couple, devout baker take cake fight to hig... 2 hr Wondering 93
News Will Donald Trump be invited to the royal wedding? 3 hr Reddiaperdoperbaby1 90
News What would Jesus say about same-sex marriage? (Jul '15) 6 hr Frindly 14,957
News All bets are off at the Supreme Court 12 hr Theocraencyclical 37
News Kentucky Baptists issue threat regarding hiring... 17 hr Frindly 3
News For women, Islam means empowerment, not oppression 19 hr Hari mirchi 9
News Top Indonesia court rejects attempt to criminal... Thu Abrahamanic Relig... 2
More from around the web