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

#22092 Nov 7, 2013
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
Naw rev, I attribute those words to God.
So does the vast bulk of historic Christianity.
Oh, and you miss interpret Paul's words. He was speaking about the things God has planned for us. On this passage, Paul was spot on a message that is consistent from start to finish in Scripture.
I don't know where you see me granting myself any authority, I simply and accurately note what the Bible says and your abuse of it.
What religion are Alan and you, rev?
akopen wrote:
<quoted text>
Biblicism is not a part of Catholicism. Catholicism depends the "Vatican for their Catholic Faith.
It is and isn't apart of Lutheranism depending on how evangelical or orthodox they are.
This seems to be true with a lot of mainline denominations. Either/or.
Since Catholicism is the largest Christian church in the United States, you lose on your opinion about what is the normal belief system. Not to mention all the other Protestant denominations that read the Bible critically.
I accurately said that the bulk of Christian tradition holds those passages as God's Word. That includes Catholicism.

Here is another truth;

You are delusional amongst other things wrong with you.

Smile.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#22093 Nov 7, 2013
Jonah1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Only in your mind. The state and the federal government still state otherwise. They trump your opinions on the matter. They always will.
Smile.
Not a good time to claim that government trumps anything.

Smile.

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#22094 Nov 7, 2013
KiMare wrote:
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
Naw rev, I attribute those words to God.
So does the vast bulk of historic Christianity.
Oh, and you miss interpret Paul's words. He was speaking about the things God has planned for us. On this passage, Paul was spot on a message that is consistent from start to finish in Scripture.
I don't know where you see me granting myself any authority, I simply and accurately note what the Bible says and your abuse of it.
What religion are Alan and you, rev?
<quoted text>
I accurately said that the bulk of Christian tradition holds those passages as God's Word. That includes Catholicism.
Here is another truth;
You are delusional amongst other things wrong with you.
Smile.
There is no such thing as God's Word, but thanks for sharing your delusion.

“... truth will out.”

Since: May 08

Stratford, Connecticut.

#22095 Nov 7, 2013
Selecia Jones- JAX FL wrote:
<quoted text>I love love love the new POPE! He said that YOU have an illness!...
Lust?
Glutony?
Drunkedness?

Oh snap, those are YOUR "illnesses".

And how do I know?
The Bible told me so ...

Since: Jun 13

Anchorage, AK

#22096 Nov 7, 2013
KiMare wrote:
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
Naw rev, I attribute those words to God.
So does the vast bulk of historic Christianity.
Oh, and you miss interpret Paul's words. He was speaking about the things God has planned for us. On this passage, Paul was spot on a message that is consistent from start to finish in Scripture.
I don't know where you see me granting myself any authority, I simply and accurately note what the Bible says and your abuse of it.
What religion are Alan and you, rev?
<quoted text>
I accurately said that the bulk of Christian tradition holds those passages as God's Word. That includes Catholicism.
Here is another truth;
You are delusional amongst other things wrong with you.
Smile.
Really? Catholicism "holds those passages as God's Word." You mean to tell me that Catholicism holds your truths.

Take Ecclesiastes, you remember insulting my exegesis. I know you don't pay attention to my documentation but you should also know that, that exegesis comes from Catholicism, from the Jerome Biblical Commentary and the NAB. Both are Catholic. So, which is it, Catholic or my personal interpretation? If you say my interpretation then you deny my documentation without verifying the documentation. If you accept my documentation from the Church then you, at the very least need to argue the points I made and Scripture.

Context means so very much in any passage. You list three verses, 27,28,29 and then you quote 20. I define 20 with 16 but according to you, I am misrepresenting scripture. I used another passage within the chapter, to establish the context to be more than your literal opinion.

Go figure. Oh, sorry, you don't reason anything but ridicule.

Since: Jun 13

Anchorage, AK

#22097 Nov 7, 2013
Joe DeCaro wrote:
<quoted text>
Lust?
Glutony?
Drunkedness?
Oh snap, those are YOUR "illnesses".
And how do I know?
The Bible told me so ...
The plural classification of the singular sin.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#22098 Nov 7, 2013
akopen wrote:
<quoted text>
Really? Catholicism "holds those passages as God's Word." You mean to tell me that Catholicism holds your truths.
Take Ecclesiastes, you remember insulting my exegesis. I know you don't pay attention to my documentation but you should also know that, that exegesis comes from Catholicism, from the Jerome Biblical Commentary and the NAB. Both are Catholic. So, which is it, Catholic or my personal interpretation? If you say my interpretation then you deny my documentation without verifying the documentation. If you accept my documentation from the Church then you, at the very least need to argue the points I made and Scripture.
Context means so very much in any passage. You list three verses, 27,28,29 and then you quote 20. I define 20 with 16 but according to you, I am misrepresenting scripture. I used another passage within the chapter, to establish the context to be more than your literal opinion.
Go figure. Oh, sorry, you don't reason anything but ridicule.
Catholicism is not restricted to your sources.

The whole passage clearly exposes the depravity of humanity.

Especially women.

I ridicule your foolish attempt to desecrate sacred things.

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#22099 Nov 7, 2013
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
Catholicism is not restricted to your sources.
The whole passage clearly exposes the depravity of humanity.
Especially women.
I ridicule your foolish attempt to desecrate sacred things.
Your anal sex sermon ain't sacred Pastor Greg.

NEXT

Since: Aug 09

Location hidden

#22100 Nov 7, 2013
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
rev, this isn't complicated. You clearly believe the OT is outdated, Jesus is the truth, just not the same truth he said yesterday, and Paul doesn't count. The telling moment of your character is after all that, you claim the tradition of not just the Episcopal tradition, but Melchizedek!
I hold to classic Christianity and give God's Word more esteem than you do Obama speaking about ObamaCa... anything. You are right, my God is not yours.
That IS the Episcopal, Scottish Rite; all the way from the Christian community and Abbey at Glastonbury, established in A.D. 63.

After his return from the defeat of Chedorloamer and the kings who were with him, the king of Sodom went out to meet him at the Valley of Shaveh (that is the King's Valley). And King Melchizedek of Salem brought out bread and wine; he was priest of God Most High.

He blessed him and said,
"Blessed be Abram by God Most High,
maker of heaven and earth;
and blessed be God Most High,
who has delivered your enemies into your hand!"

Genesis 14

*

The Lord says to my lord,
"Sit at my right hand
until I make your enemies your footstool."

Psalm 110

*

Now while the Pharisees were gathered together, Jesus asked them this question:
"What do you think of the Messiah? Whose son is he?"
They said to him, "The son of David."
He said to them, "How is it then that David by the Spirit calls him Lord, saying,

'The Lord said to my Lord,
"Sit at my right hand,
until I put your enemies under your feet"'?

If David thus calls him Lord, how can he be his son?

Matthew 22

*

He is able to deal gently with the ignorant and wayward, since he himself is subject to weakness;

Hebrews 5

*

Rev. Ken
A priest and disciple of the Lord, Christ Jesus.

Since: Jun 13

Anchorage, AK

#22101 Nov 7, 2013
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
Catholicism is not restricted to your sources.
The whole passage clearly exposes the depravity of humanity.
Especially women.
I ridicule your foolish attempt to desecrate sacred things.
Ya, ya, I know all about your profanation of the Word of God.

Since: Jun 13

Anchorage, AK

#22102 Nov 7, 2013
Reverend Alan wrote:
<quoted text>
If biblicists are going to quote Old Law with respect to executing homosexuals, then why don't they quote verses which prescribe the death penalty for a wide variety of acts other than homosexuality?

Biblicists teach, preach, and attempt to reach others with many OT moralisms, but are not adverse to selectivety using that which suits their interests. If they like an OT verse, they expound it; if they don't, they say that's from the Old Law and we aren't under the Old Law anymore. But aren't the Ten Commandments part of the Old Law? Yes, they say, but we are obligated to follow them because they are reported in the NT (Matt. 19:16-18, Mark 10:17-19, and Luke 18:18-22). People who assert as much should note that Jesus omitted half of the Ten Commanments. But even if they had been present, we would still be under all the Old Law, including the Decalogue, according to Christ ("And it is easier for heaven and earth to pass, than one tittle of law to fail"--Luke 16:17, see also Matt. 5:18-19). If "sin is transgression of the law", as 1 John 3:4 says, then Christians should be following all of the Old Law.
I'd have to say I don't understand why Biblicists don't but then we both know they don't because then they would have to believe in something they don't want their god to be.

If "sin ... ", let me quote the JBC[43:34:18], this is about Matt.5:18-19, "A deliberately obscure phrase; the Law will not pass until it has been finished and perfected by the Messianic work of Jesus." Sin is not something you do as much as it is about one's intention. Intent to do harm. This is what the OT did not teach with the Law. And they did not get it.

Christianity, more specifically, Biblicists do not get it. I know of Atheist that have greater love for their fellow man.

Since: Jun 13

Anchorage, AK

#22103 Nov 7, 2013
Reverend Alan wrote:
<quoted text>
You make a huge mistake, huge Huge HUGE! If you expect honesty from KiMare. He has devoted his whole entire life to deceiving people, and himself, and he is not about to get honest now.
While the new and improved KiMare may not be as abrasive as in the past he still falls under the law of often repeated acts.
Jer. 13:23 NIV, "Can the Ethiopian change his skin or the leopard its spots?
Ya, I know.

Since: Jun 13

Anchorage, AK

#22104 Nov 7, 2013
Reverend Alan wrote:
<quoted text>
Well his interpretation counts to him. And he is in love with his opinions. Because of the lack of cohesion with in the modern human brain, everyone has their own interpretation and their own opinion which means what Jesus said about one Sheppard and one flock will never become reality as long as human beings remain as they are in a state of discord, confusion and conflict.
The only sane thing to do is to become a conscious being living in a state of harmony.
This is a great post. Thanks for it.

“It's Time. . .”

Since: Jun 13

New Holland

#22105 Nov 8, 2013
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
And after all the gay troll twirl,
At it's most basic essence, marriage is a cross cultural constraint on evolutionary mating behavior.
Ss couples are a defective failure of mating behavior. A facade of the real thing. A fake family at the expense of children.
Man up girls, quit trying to impose a theft on the backs of women and children!
Waffle...ad infinitum.

Gee I'm so offended that you called me a girl. Actually it's the first bit of reality I've seen from you, dingbat. LOLOLOLOLOL!

“It's Time. . .”

Since: Jun 13

New Holland

#22106 Nov 8, 2013
Joe DeCaro wrote:
<quoted text>
Lust?
Glutony?
Drunkedness?
Oh snap, those are YOUR "illnesses".
And how do I know?
The Bible told me so ...
Then I hope you haven't had a shave lately, Joe, and trimmed the edge of your beard lately. The Bible tells us so for that, as well.

Leviticus 19:27
Do not cut the hair at the sides of your head or clip off the edges of your beard.

“It's Time. . .”

Since: Jun 13

New Holland

#22107 Nov 8, 2013
WasteWater wrote:
<quoted text>
Your anal sex sermon ain't sacred Pastor Greg.
NEXT
No, just holey.
:D

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#22108 Nov 8, 2013
RevKen wrote:
<quoted text>
That IS the Episcopal, Scottish Rite; all the way from the Christian community and Abbey at Glastonbury, established in A.D. 63.
After his return from the defeat of Chedorloamer and the kings who were with him, the king of Sodom went out to meet him at the Valley of Shaveh (that is the King's Valley). And King Melchizedek of Salem brought out bread and wine; he was priest of God Most High.
He blessed him and said,
"Blessed be Abram by God Most High,
maker of heaven and earth;
and blessed be God Most High,
who has delivered your enemies into your hand!"
Genesis 14
*
The Lord says to my lord,
"Sit at my right hand
until I make your enemies your footstool."
Psalm 110
*
Now while the Pharisees were gathered together, Jesus asked them this question:
"What do you think of the Messiah? Whose son is he?"
They said to him, "The son of David."
He said to them, "How is it then that David by the Spirit calls him Lord, saying,
'The Lord said to my Lord,
"Sit at my right hand,
until I put your enemies under your feet"'?
If David thus calls him Lord, how can he be his son?
Matthew 22
*
He is able to deal gently with the ignorant and wayward, since he himself is subject to weakness;
Hebrews 5
*
Rev. Ken
A priest and disciple of the Lord, Christ Jesus.
Reciting spiritual words equates you to their purpose?

That is witchcraft, not Christiaity.

Since: Aug 09

Location hidden

#22109 Nov 8, 2013
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
Reciting spiritual words equates you to their purpose?
That is witchcraft, not Christiaity.
Witchcraft????

Oh, now that's a new one for you.

So, was Melchizedek a witch?

Was King David, a priest after Melchizedek, a witch, too?

Was Jesus a witch? Some probably think so.

Is the pope a witch? The Lutherans think so.

Was Martin Luther a witch? The Catholics said so.

Is Presiding Bishop Katharine Jefferts-Schori a witch? A bunch of ex-Episcopalians say so.

Is the Greek Orthodox, His Eminence Archbishop Demetrios, a witch?

All were or are ordained priests "after the Order of Melchizedek."

So was Aaron. So was Moses.

So is your favorite Jesuit.

There are many more than these. Is the Rev. Billy Graham a priest after the Order of Melchizedek? I and many, many others regard him to be an ordained minister of Jesus Christ, maybe even hand-picked by Jesus Himself. Would that make him a priest after the priestly order of Jesus Christ? It sure would.

And then you have others who have fully recognized Jesus Christ, yet who come from other priestly lines of study. How about Paramahansa Yogananda? Was he a witch? No. He was not a witch.

What about your local Baptist minister? Is he a witch? What about the pastor at the Church of the Nazorene? Is he a witch? What about the retired Methodist bishop that you have raised such a stink about? Is she a witch?

What about the scripture that says something to the effect that, "In that day every person shall be a priest."

Yes, I am an ordained priest. But, if I were you, I wouldn't be so inclined to get your panties all up in a knot over this. Welcome to the Human Race.

Like I wrote in the previous post, some people recognize my ordination and some don't. I've read here that you are or were an ordained minister in the United Church of Christ. If so, does that qualify you to be regarded as a witch?

I gave four references to parts in the Bible that are understood to be links to the line of the priesthood. If the Bible is to be your guide, read the chapters and the psalm. Consider what was written. Then get over any paranoia that you may have about people who get ordained as priests, pastors and ministers. They generally do it because, in some way or another, they get called to do it.

There are good ones and there are not-so-good-ones and there are crooked bad ones, and then there are just plain hypocritical, bigoted, looney ones, just like with every other designation of profession. And, there are also ones that have used the privilege of the office to become destructive human monsters that prey on and bring condemnation on innocents. But, that is a different kind of problem. Isn't it.

And they are ALL pretty much insignificant and worthless, if you see things the way Rev. Alan sees things. And, he may be right. In any case, he calls himself a Rev., too. So, who am I to argue with him about it? At least he takes his Teaching very seriously, makes a valid point consistently and deserves respect for it. But, is he a witch? Not likely.

So, are UCC Pastors actually Puritan Ministers in disguise?

Rev. Ken

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#22110 Nov 8, 2013
RevKen wrote:
<quoted text>
Witchcraft????
Oh, now that's a new one for you.
So, was Melchizedek a witch?
Was King David, a priest after Melchizedek, a witch, too?
Was Jesus a witch? Some probably think so.
Is the pope a witch? The Lutherans think so.
Was Martin Luther a witch? The Catholics said so.
Is Presiding Bishop Katharine Jefferts-Schori a witch? A bunch of ex-Episcopalians say so.
Is the Greek Orthodox, His Eminence Archbishop Demetrios, a witch?
All were or are ordained priests "after the Order of Melchizedek."
So was Aaron. So was Moses.
So is your favorite Jesuit.
There are many more than these. Is the Rev. Billy Graham a priest after the Order of Melchizedek? I and many, many others regard him to be an ordained minister of Jesus Christ, maybe even hand-picked by Jesus Himself. Would that make him a priest after the priestly order of Jesus Christ? It sure would.
And then you have others who have fully recognized Jesus Christ, yet who come from other priestly lines of study. How about Paramahansa Yogananda? Was he a witch? No. He was not a witch.
What about your local Baptist minister? Is he a witch? What about the pastor at the Church of the Nazorene? Is he a witch? What about the retired Methodist bishop that you have raised such a stink about? Is she a witch?
What about the scripture that says something to the effect that, "In that day every person shall be a priest."
Yes, I am an ordained priest. But, if I were you, I wouldn't be so inclined to get your panties all up in a knot over this. Welcome to the Human Race.
Like I wrote in the previous post, some people recognize my ordination and some don't. I've read here that you are or were an ordained minister in the United Church of Christ. If so, does that qualify you to be regarded as a witch?
I gave four references to parts in the Bible that are understood to be links to the line of the priesthood. If the Bible is to be your guide, read the chapters and the psalm. Consider what was written. Then get over any paranoia that you may have about people who get ordained as priests, pastors and ministers. They generally do it because, in some way or another, they get called to do it.
There are good ones and there are not-so-good-ones and there are crooked bad ones, and then there are just plain hypocritical, bigoted, looney ones, just like with every other designation of profession. And, there are also ones that have used the privilege of the office to become destructive human monsters that prey on and bring condemnation on innocents. But, that is a different kind of problem. Isn't it.
And they are ALL pretty much insignificant and worthless, if you see things the way Rev. Alan sees things. And, he may be right. In any case, he calls himself a Rev., too. So, who am I to argue with him about it? At least he takes his Teaching very seriously, makes a valid point consistently and deserves respect for it. But, is he a witch? Not likely.
So, are UCC Pastors actually Puritan Ministers in disguise?
Rev. Ken
You deny the power of God.

You claim a circumcision of religion, but reject a circumcision of the heart.

You spout the words, but they are not in spirit and in truth.

Like Balaam, you seek to curse God's people according to your will and not God's. That was deemed witchcraft.

“Crusading Fundies r hilarious!”

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#22111 Nov 8, 2013
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
Not a good time to claim that government trumps anything.
Smile.
It's a perfect time. The government will ALWAYS trump you and your baseless opinions. ALWAYS. You're nothing cur.

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 What would Jesus say about same-sex marriage? (Jul '15) 4 min LGBT Bakery 17,309
News Gay Cakes Are Not a Constitutional Right 3 hr Frankie Rizzo 824
News Connecticut sees - gay baby boom' 3 hr Kurt 31
News US gay couple sues after getting 'hateful' flye... 5 hr Wondering 2
News $20 million worth of intolerance (Nov '08) Wed a-voice-in-paradise 409
News Landlord Caught Having Sex In Tenants's Bed (Dec '16) Mon Suezanne 13
News Kentucky Baptists issue threat regarding hiring... Jan 15 Hudson 94
More from around the web