Homosexuality and the Bible

Homosexuality and the Bible

There are 36038 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.

SHADOW

Canyon Lake, TX

#21675 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.
Oh Baloney! Nothing but the truth and 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.
I'm calling baloney on you again fake un rev.

Since: Aug 09

Location hidden

#21676 Oct 28, 2013
SHADOW wrote:
<quoted text>
Oh Baloney! Nothing but the truth and 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.
I'm calling baloney on you again fake un rev.
Sock puppet reply.

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#21677 Oct 28, 2013
SHADOW wrote:
<quoted text>
Oh Baloney! Nothing but the truth and 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.
I'm calling baloney on you again fake un rev.
How's Prop 8 going for you R1?

You sound like you drank some bitter beer. God is not with you bro.
SHADOW

Canyon Lake, TX

#21678 Oct 28, 2013
RevKen wrote:
<quoted text>
Sock puppet reply.
Oh Baloney! Nothing but the truth and 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.
Your perverted attitude doesn't change the facts un rev.

Since: Aug 09

Location hidden

#21679 Oct 28, 2013
Autumnglow wrote:
...
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?
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.
It is interesting, Autumnglow, that you will blissfully accept a marriage between two people, one or both of whom may be closet gays or bisexuals as long as you are not made aware of the fact. Their children are perfectly acceptable as long as YOU don't know the truth; and it is a known fact that homosexuals and bisexuals who are legally married and who appear to be normal heterosexual couples do have children.

But, if YOU find out that these people have children, these children are somehow no longer in an acceptable situation OR these parents are not acceptable for their own children, because of YOUR perception!

That's HOGWASH, Autumnglow!

What you are trying to do is to simultaneously hold onto an old, obviously outdated, hypocritical idea of tribal morality while also coming into a reasonable understanding that same-sex couples actually do naturally occur.

As for the children, get your bible out and read what Jesus is reported to have said in the Gospel of Matthew, Ch. 19.

Not only does Jesus teach that marriage is the CONSEQUENCE of the human pair-bond - not the cause - He also teaches that He understands that there are people who are not simply heterosexual. He speaks of "eunuchs." But, He does NOT put conditions upon them or upon their behavior(unlike as asserted by others on this thread and elsewhere). He simply notes that they do exist.

Now, if I were a bettin' man, and I have been known to indulge in such vices from time to time, I would lay better-than-even odds that after Jesus says, "Not everyone can accept this teaching, but only those to whom it is given." His disciples would have continued to ask Him about what He meant and means.

I know I would have asked and I don't count myself as being any more or less smart or inquisitive than His disciples were.

But, the Gospels do not go any further in any such explanations. All we know by these quotes is that Jesus knew that people who were other than heterosexual do naturally exist as having been born into this world as they are and that He does not specifically condemn either them or their behavior.

He just does not condemn them.

These are the facts of the script.

Then, in the VERY SAME Chapter of Matthew, Jesus goes on to say, "Suffer the little children to come to me."

This is not a simple coincidence involving various unrelated ideas in text, Autumnglow!

These ideas are CONTEXTUAL.

We now know, as a result of modern research, that the embryonic child comes into its permanent sexual development and orientation within the first seven weeks of its life.

Now ask yourself:

Is it better for a heterosexual child to grow up understanding that his or her parents are naturally homosexual and that they actually found each other and love each other and also love and care for the development of this their own child, brought to them and placed in their safe-keeping and nurturing by whatever process of fertilization?

OR

Is it better for a homosexual child to grow up understanding that if his or her naturally heterosexual parents find out about their child's unusual, yet natural orientation, they will condemn and shun and will withhold the very love that every child needs - even their OWN child - teaching this child that if he or she becomes who they naturally are, they will be ultimately condemned in sin to eternal Hell!

Jesus knew the answer. And now you do, too.

Rev. Ken

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#21680 Oct 28, 2013
SHADOW wrote:
<quoted text>
Oh Baloney! Nothing but the truth and 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.
Your perverted attitude doesn't change the facts un rev.
Repeating another babbler's posts R1?

Since: Feb 09

Location hidden

#21681 Oct 28, 2013
Rosa_Winkel wrote:
<quoted text>
All the lawyers would HATE that. Think of all the fees they wouldn't have, from handling divorce cases!
And the very same lawyers do not want to end the Governments War on the American people, AKA the War on Drugs, AKA the War on People of Color. It is way too profitable to keep building prisons and putting people in them for lawyers to do the right thing.

It was not that long ago that gay bars were raided by our Government and all the customers were arrested and had their names printed in the paper the next day. My uncle [gay uncle] told me that he had a Lesbian friend and when they went to the bar they went as a couple in case there was a raid they could say they were together and once it worked, the cops let them go. His lesbian friend had to carry lipstick because the cops would let lipstick lesbians leave with out being arrested. So when the lights flashed and the cops showed up all the lesbians would start putting on lipstick, it could mean not going to jail and not having your name printed in the paper. My uncle eventually married his lesbian friend and they lived in the same house for the rest of their lives. Few people ever suspected they were a gay man and a lesbian and not a heterosexual couple with out children.

Since: Feb 09

Location hidden

#21682 Oct 28, 2013
RevKen wrote:
<quoted text>
Oh, Baloney!
Good reply RevKen! I hope LieMore gets the message loud and clear. But alas, we all know better; you can't teach an old dog new tricks.

Since: Feb 09

Location hidden

#21683 Oct 28, 2013
RevKen wrote:
<quoted text>
Your Baloney is bigger than his Baloney!
Shadow found out his wife has a bigger dick than he has. That is why he is full of baloney.

Since: Feb 09

Location hidden

#21684 Oct 28, 2013
akopen wrote:
<quoted text>
This is the only verse in the Bible that can be associated with abortion.
Exactly and it is not about the fetus but the woman.
Religion is the Problem

Milsons Point, Australia

#21685 Oct 28, 2013
What a bunch of utter crap.

Originally contrived and administered by religions, the anachronistic so-called "institution" of marriage is merely the historical means through which men exert subjugation, and by extension, dominance and ownership over women.

Until quite recently, marriage didn't even exist for common people. It only ever applied to the wealthy, ruling classes, and deliberately allowed the churches to control the distribution of money, assets and power.

The entire notion of marriage is outdated and should be abandoned. If to be retained, then it should obviously apply to any two people who are in a committed long term relationship where assets, estate and other legal entitlements are concerned.

There is no point consulting an ancient collection of demented superstitious myths for any wisdom on the subject, nor for anything else of importance.

You attach far too much importance to your religious beliefs, and that in turn subverts your ability to think for yourself.
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.

Since: Feb 09

Location hidden

#21686 Oct 28, 2013
Religion is the Problem wrote:
What a bunch of utter crap.
Originally contrived and administered by religions, the anachronistic so-called "institution" of marriage is merely the historical means through which men exert subjugation, and by extension, dominance and ownership over women.
Until quite recently, marriage didn't even exist for common people. It only ever applied to the wealthy, ruling classes, and deliberately allowed the churches to control the distribution of money, assets and power.
The entire notion of marriage is outdated and should be abandoned. If to be retained, then it should obviously apply to any two people who are in a committed long term relationship where assets, estate and other legal entitlements are concerned.
There is no point consulting an ancient collection of demented superstitious myths for any wisdom on the subject, nor for anything else of importance.
You attach far too much importance to your religious beliefs, and that in turn subverts your ability to think for yourself.
<quoted text>
Nicely said!

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#21687 Oct 28, 2013
RevKen wrote:
<quoted text>
Sock puppet reply.
Shadow is Ki
Mare?

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#21688 Oct 28, 2013
RevKen wrote:
<quoted text>
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
What a pile of gay twirl bs.
1. Where did I say a committed relationship requires marriage? And I certainly didn't say a committed relationship IS marriage. I have lots of committed relationships, but only one is marriage. What stupid assertions!
2. You deliberately distort what I said. A lie, rev! I said nature establishes a mother and father raising the child. It goes against human instinct to not do that! Marriage was specifically established to support that instinct.
3. Acknowledging, as you admit, that marriage is the BEST and ONLY setting that births every single other relationship in society in no way establishes approval for those relationships. That is simply another idiotic assertion.
4. We are not talking about soul bonds, we are talking about marriage. Far more than just a soul bond. The union of a male and female is a unique creation, that no duplicate gendered couple can come near matching.
5. That anal sex is an abusive violation of design is a physical fact. A sick mind excuses it.
6. Pre-gender is a simple fact of evolution. However, the Bible indicated that very thing long before science recognized it. Eve was taken from Adam, and reunited in marriage. A ss couple can never replicate that.
7. Only by the violent and forced imposition on culture, and the denial of religious truth is this desecration occurring. Even God doesn't impose Himself that way.
Here is what God says about what you 'will' do;
Leviticus 18:24-25 (NASB)
24 'Do not defile yourselves by any of these things; for by all these the nations which I am casting out before you have become defiled.
25 ~'For the land has become defiled, therefore I have brought its punishment upon it, so the land has spewed out its inhabitants.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#21689 Oct 28, 2013
RevKen wrote:
<quoted text>
It is interesting, Autumnglow, that you will blissfully accept a marriage between two people, one or both of whom may be closet gays or bisexuals as long as you are not made aware of the fact. Their children are perfectly acceptable as long as YOU don't know the truth; and it is a known fact that homosexuals and bisexuals who are legally married and who appear to be normal heterosexual couples do have children.
But, if YOU find out that these people have children, these children are somehow no longer in an acceptable situation OR these parents are not acceptable for their own children, because of YOUR perception!
That's HOGWASH, Autumnglow!
What you are trying to do is to simultaneously hold onto an old, obviously outdated, hypocritical idea of tribal morality while also coming into a reasonable understanding that same-sex couples actually do naturally occur.
As for the children, get your bible out and read what Jesus is reported to have said in the Gospel of Matthew, Ch. 19.
Not only does Jesus teach that marriage is the CONSEQUENCE of the human pair-bond - not the cause - He also teaches that He understands that there are people who are not simply heterosexual. He speaks of "eunuchs." But, He does NOT put conditions upon them or upon their behavior(unlike as asserted by others on this thread and elsewhere). He simply notes that they do exist.
Now, if I were a bettin' man, and I have been known to indulge in such vices from time to time, I would lay better-than-even odds that after Jesus says, "Not everyone can accept this teaching, but only those to whom it is given." His disciples would have continued to ask Him about what He meant and means.
I know I would have asked and I don't count myself as being any more or less smart or inquisitive than His disciples were.
But, the Gospels do not go any further in any such explanations. All we know by these quotes is that Jesus knew that people who were other than heterosexual do naturally exist as having been born into this world as they are and that He does not specifically condemn either them or their behavior.
He just does not condemn them.
These are the facts of the script.
Then, in the VERY SAME Chapter of Matthew, Jesus goes on to say, "Suffer the little children to come to me."
This is not a simple coincidence involving various unrelated ideas in text, Autumnglow!
These ideas are CONTEXTUAL.
We now know, as a result of modern research, that the embryonic child comes into its permanent sexual development and orientation within the first seven weeks of its life.
Now ask yourself:
Is it better for a heterosexual child to grow up understanding that his or her parents are naturally homosexual and that they actually found each other and love each other and also love and care for the development of this their own child, brought to them and placed in their safe-keeping and nurturing by whatever process of fertilization?
OR
Is it better for a homosexual child to grow up understanding that if his or her naturally heterosexual parents find out about their child's unusual, yet natural orientation, they will condemn and shun and will withhold the very love that every child needs - even their OWN child - teaching this child that if he or she becomes who they naturally are, they will be ultimately condemned in sin to eternal Hell!
Jesus knew the answer. And now you do, too.
Rev. Ken
You must have diarrhea today rev. That gay twirl stinks up to high heaven!

A child has one mother and one father. Depriving them of those parents is heart breaking and devastating to their well-being. Depriving them of one of those default roles only exasperates the harm. It is why God says He is a Father to the fatherless.

You are disgusting pompous BS.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#21690 Oct 28, 2013
You are disgusting with your pompous BS.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#21691 Oct 28, 2013
Religion is the Problem wrote:
What a bunch of utter crap.
Originally contrived and administered by religions, the anachronistic so-called "institution" of marriage is merely the historical means through which men exert subjugation, and by extension, dominance and ownership over women.
Until quite recently, marriage didn't even exist for common people. It only ever applied to the wealthy, ruling classes, and deliberately allowed the churches to control the distribution of money, assets and power.
The entire notion of marriage is outdated and should be abandoned. If to be retained, then it should obviously apply to any two people who are in a committed long term relationship where assets, estate and other legal entitlements are concerned.
There is no point consulting an ancient collection of demented superstitious myths for any wisdom on the subject, nor for anything else of importance.
You attach far too much importance to your religious beliefs, and that in turn subverts your ability to think for yourself.
<quoted text>
Your hateful bigotry is making you an idiot.

I made one reference to religion as a culturally sensitive act.

Your info comes from a gay twirl site, and is down right stupid.

http://www.psy.cmu.edu/~rakison/bussandschmit...

“Busting Kimare's”

Since: Feb 13

Clitty

#21692 Oct 28, 2013
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
What a pile of gay twirl bs.
5. That anal sex is an abusive violation of design is a physical fact...
And what does this have to do with my marriage?
Your opinions about sex habits are of no relevance to marriage.

Since: Feb 09

Location hidden

#21693 Oct 28, 2013
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
[wholly unconvincing assertions snipped]
If you want to be a real Christian what must you do?

A. Harass homosexuals all day long.

or

B. Sell everything and give the money to the poor?

The answer is B!

"...none of you can be my disciple unless he gives up everything he has" Luke 14:33
"If you want to be perfect, go and sell all you have and give the money to the poor and you will have riches in heaven" Matt. 19:21
"Sell your possessions and give alms" Luke 12:33
"But give what is in your cups and plates to the poor, and everything will be clean for you" Luke 11:41
"Lay not up for yourselves treasures upon earth, where moth and rust doth corrupt,.... But lay up for yourselves treasures in heaven.... for where your treasure is, there will your heart be also" Matt. 6:19-21
"How hardly shall they that have riches enter to the kingdom of God" Mark 10:23
"Truly, I say to you, it will be hard for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven. Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God" Matt. 19:23-24
A certain ruler told Jesus that he had obeyed all the commandments from his youth up. But, Jesus said, "Yet lackest thou one thing: sell all that thou hast, and distribute unto the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come, follow me" Luke 18:22, Mark 10:21

Since: Feb 09

Location hidden

#21694 Oct 28, 2013
LUKE 17:21

QUESTION: Is the Kingdom of God within us or among us?

ANSWER ONE:("...the Kingdom of God is within you"--KJ, LB, AS, TEV, NWT, NI, LV)

versus

ANSWER TWO:("...the Kingdom of God is among you"--RS, ML, JB, BBE, NEB, NAB, NAS).

Whether or not the Kingdom of God is within you or outside is of theological importance.

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 Nicole Kidman's priest says actress hopes one d... 18 hr Sco-ttt 2
News What would Jesus say about same-sex marriage? (Jul '15) Tue Lips9431 4,722
News Were 'Fixer Upper' Stars Chip and Joanna Gaines... Tue Xstain Mullah Aroma 17
News Slovenians vote on whether to uphold same-sex m... (Dec '15) Mon fathiwady 13
News Gay 'marriage': A recipe for anarchy (Apr '15) Dec 5 SaintSin242 37
News Landlord Caught Having Sex In Tenants's Bed Dec 5 Mitts Gold Taliblets 8
News Kaine says Catholic Church might change on gay ... Dec 5 filmsz 74
More from around the web