Homosexuality and the Bible

Homosexuality and the Bible

There are 36047 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.

Since: Jun 13

Anchorage, AK

#22233 Nov 12, 2013
Reverend Alan wrote:
<quoted text>
There are no rules about sex.
And for "the simple minded" there are rules against violating the rights of others; rape and child molesting are not sex.
Agreed.

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#22234 Nov 12, 2013
OkieDarren wrote:
<quoted text>
You need badly to be informed of something--not only are KiMare's hate and lies NOT Christian in any way, they are direct violations of the most basic principles of our faith.
Very true indeed.

Pastor Greg is more interested in give a sermon on anal sex than promoting the ways of Jesus.

Since: Feb 09

Location hidden

#22235 Nov 12, 2013
OkieDarren wrote:
<quoted text>
You need badly to be informed of something--not only are KiMare's hate and lies NOT Christian in any way, they are direct violations of the most basic principles of our faith.
And KiMare says he is the real Christian with the real Christianity. You present me with 3 choices and they are:

A. Believe you.

B. Believe KiMare

C. Read the Bible and post the relevant verses.

I chose C. Here are the relevant verses:

JESUS: Luke 19:27, "But those enemies of mine who did not want me to be king over them, bring them here and kill them in front of me."

JESUS: Luke 14:26, "If anyone comes to me and does not hate his father and mother, his wife and children, his brothers and sisters  yes, even his own life he cannot be my disciple."

JESUS: Matt. 10:34, NIV
"Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword."

Don't bother "explaining" what these verses really mean, if Jesus was too stupid to say what he meant then I don't really care.

Since: Feb 09

Location hidden

#22236 Nov 12, 2013
akopen wrote:
<quoted text>
Can't argue with that!
There are lunatics who will.

Since: Feb 09

Location hidden

#22237 Nov 12, 2013
akopen wrote:
<quoted text>
You ask seriously. Because there is truth in what you question that answer is what you'd expect. I don't know for certain.
One way to help verify the fact that we do not know ourselves is to try to change a habit. One "i" makes a promise to get out of bed early the next morning so as to exercise. Yet the next morning when the alarm clock rings 15 minutes early it is another "i" that hits the snooze alarm and says "I changed my mind" and goes back to sleep. It is an illusion that we have an "I" that can change its mind, it is a game of King Of the Mountain, where children knock other children off the top of a pile of dirt and claim they are king, only to be knocked off by another who claims he is king, and so on and so forth.

Inside each of us exists a mechanism that is separate from this parade of "i's" and is capable of watching or observing them bring forth everything that we call "our thoughts". We do not have any thoughts, such as we are, what goes on in our head is like noisy neighbors who play their radio too loud. We are identified with the endless stream of thoughts that play out through our head and the only freedom is to find that in us that is not those thoughts and then watch those i's parade through out head. You can't stop them all you can do is observe them. But we all have a "doer" in each of us who does not want to give up its "doing" and one must see this doer for what it is.

Something that is not you is running the show and taking you where it wants to go. And this is how it has to be on the earth for our solar system to function.

Since: Feb 09

Location hidden

#22238 Nov 12, 2013
WasteWater wrote:
<quoted text>
Very true indeed.
Pastor Greg is more interested in give a sermon on anal sex than promoting the ways of Jesus.
It does not bring me any pleasure to post verses that when taken at the lowest possible level of "understanding" make Jesus out to be a monster.

We are in agreement that NightMare Greg is not a very nice person and that those like him participate in a crime against humanity.

I hope that NightMare gets tired of anal sex so we can move onto oral sex. Now that is something I do enjoy!

“... truth will out.”

Since: May 08

Stratford, Connecticut.

#22239 Nov 12, 2013
akopen wrote:
<quoted text>
Free will is man's impression of ...
"The traditional discussion between determinism and indeterminism concerning "freedom of the will" is an "objectified" form of the ontological tension between freedom and destiny ... Joe, you are probably asking what that means ...
I know what free will means because I read its definition right out my Merriam-Webster Dictionary.

I speak in English, not in doctrine.

Since: Jun 13

Anchorage, AK

#22240 Nov 12, 2013
#2528
When Leviticus 18:22 refers to a man not to lie the lyings of a woman with another man, the verse is relating to forbidding penetrative sex with a man. This verse is not about lesbianism. There is nothing prohibitive about women because women do not have penetrative sex with women. Nothing about female-female sex is about the males role; or a confusion of roles. Lesbianism is not an issue in Leviticus 18:22 nor is this verse an issue of modern understanding of homosexuality.

In our society, sex is construed as any and all activity that we, as modern sexual beings, do sexually. When one understands the “lyings of a woman,” lyings (plural) is a reference to all ways a man can have penetrative sex with a woman. This would, therefore, address penetrative male-male sex.

There is no reference to any notion of sexuality in the Bible. Heterosexuality and homosexuality are not distinguished to mean whom one had sex with but how one had sex. Was sex penetrative? Otherwise, was there a mixing of kinds? Was there a mixing of roles where a man penetrates another man? The abomination was male-male penetration; only.

The Biblical teaching does not address questions about homosexuality, transvestism, and transsexualism or lesbianism as we have come to understand these complex psychosocial interactions of human sexuality.

“... truth will out.”

Since: May 08

Stratford, Connecticut.

#22241 Nov 12, 2013
Reverend Alan wrote:
<quoted text>
We must start at the beginning Joe, and the beginning with you is your refusal to engage in a serious discussion ...
Look at your avatar, Rev. Santa, and then explain to me how I'm supposed to have a serious discussion with you!

Since: Jun 13

Anchorage, AK

#22242 Nov 12, 2013
Joe DeCaro wrote:
<quoted text>
I know what free will means because I read its definition right out my Merriam-Webster Dictionary.
I speak in English, not in doctrine.
Joe, you seem to say that free will comes to us from God. Where in the Bible does it say, free will?

Let me help you out. The Bible does not speak of "free will." Your definition lies with the Merriam-Webster Dictionary. Any other reference to free will is doctrine.

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#22243 Nov 12, 2013
akopen wrote:
#2528
When Leviticus 18:22 refers to a man not to lie the lyings of a woman with another man, the verse is relating to forbidding penetrative sex with a man. This verse is not about lesbianism. There is nothing prohibitive about women because women do not have penetrative sex with women. Nothing about female-female sex is about the males role; or a confusion of roles. Lesbianism is not an issue in Leviticus 18:22 nor is this verse an issue of modern understanding of homosexuality.
In our society, sex is construed as any and all activity that we, as modern sexual beings, do sexually. When one understands the “lyings of a woman,” lyings (plural) is a reference to all ways a man can have penetrative sex with a woman. This would, therefore, address penetrative male-male sex.
There is no reference to any notion of sexuality in the Bible. Heterosexuality and homosexuality are not distinguished to mean whom one had sex with but how one had sex. Was sex penetrative? Otherwise, was there a mixing of kinds? Was there a mixing of roles where a man penetrates another man? The abomination was male-male penetration; only.
The Biblical teaching does not address questions about homosexuality, transvestism, and transsexualism or lesbianism as we have come to understand these complex psychosocial interactions of human sexuality.
What's more, the preceding passage is about Canaanite ritual.

21 “‘Do not give any of your children to be sacrificed to Molek, for you must not profane the name of your God. I am the Lord.

Since there was no chapter and verse distinction in Hebrew Scripture, these two passages are related.

“Busting Kimare's”

Since: Feb 13

Clitty

#22244 Nov 12, 2013
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
Matthew 19.
Three types of eunuchs.
And not one mention of gay men.

“... truth will out.”

Since: May 08

Stratford, Connecticut.

#22245 Nov 12, 2013
akopen wrote:
<quoted text>
Joe, you seem to say that free will comes to us from God ...
Actually I said choices come to us from God, e.g., Deuteronomy 30:15 and 30:19.

Since: Jun 13

Anchorage, AK

#22246 Nov 12, 2013
WasteWater wrote:
<quoted text>
What's more, the preceding passage is about Canaanite ritual.
21 “‘Do not give any of your children to be sacrificed to Molek, for you must not profane the name of your God. I am the Lord.
Since there was no chapter and verse distinction in Hebrew Scripture, these two passages are related.
You are correct to point out 21.

More so, my point was related to Rev. Alan's comment about talking about oral sex.

How many ways can a man have sex with a woman?

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#22247 Nov 12, 2013
akopen wrote:
"Some live without marriage, by reason of a natal defect or surgery; the state of celibacy is not always of one's won choice."JBC[132:12].
#3707
Yes, Lacon, your perceptions run wild. Early Church Fathers did not know the word homosexual but they knew of Eunuchs. A natural Eunuch is what we call a Gay today. Isaiah spoke of a new word. Eunuchs were welcomed in the temple. In Rome, Eunuchs were men, they had all the parts. Eunuchs were not interested in women and soon what defines men was no longer about their parts but about their interest in women. The Early Church had a problem with this because Jesus was not interested in women, no desire because Jesus was divine and sex was not divine. But, if Jesus was not interested in women, he was divine and Gay. The Early Church Fathers spoke about the abuse of young boys, pederasty, not homosexuality. Call it what you want, any scholar worth their PhD would disagree with you.
http://www.catholic.com/tracts/early-teaching ...
|
You are a smart man AK, but you are disconnected from reality. That makes you foolish.

Yes Jesus is divine, and sex is temporary. So how could Jesus not be heterosexual because of that, and yet be gay?

BUT, Jesus came as a man, and was tempted in every way, yet without sin. The temptation to sin could be two-fold; Fornication or homosexuality. We don't know because the Bible isn't specific.

Additionally, the context of Matthew 19, where a born eunuch is noted, is celibacy as the only alternative to marriage between a man and woman.

The early Church held the traditional morality of Judaism which considered homosexuality an abomination (smile).

Oh, and the inhospitality of Sodom and Gomorrah looked like homosexuality and is indicated in references you left out.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#22248 Nov 12, 2013
Dusty Mangina wrote:
<quoted text>
And not one mention of gay men.
Even AK agrees with me.

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#22249 Nov 12, 2013
akopen wrote:
<quoted text>
You are correct to point out 21.
More so, my point was related to Rev. Alan's comment about talking about oral sex.
How many ways can a man have sex with a woman?
One thing is for certain, he can't lay with a man as with a woman. That is physically impossible.

“Busting Kimare's”

Since: Feb 13

Clitty

#22250 Nov 12, 2013
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
Even AK agrees with me.
I don't. At any rate, it's irrelevant. It does not affect my marriage at all.

Since: Jun 13

Anchorage, AK

#22251 Nov 12, 2013
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
Even AK agrees with me.
Careful what you say. I may agree with you that Matthew talked about three kinds of Eunuchs but we do not agree with the interpretation of that passage. You are misusing what we agree with.

Since: Jun 13

Anchorage, AK

#22252 Nov 12, 2013
Dusty Mangina wrote:
<quoted text>
I don't. At any rate, it's irrelevant. It does not affect my marriage at all.
Nor should it Dusty. KiMare missuses what we agree with to validate what it was he was saying to you.

Some history:
#3031
II. THE RADICAL EXAMPLE OF ISAIAH 56
Is it then impossible for the church to speak a new word on this difficult issue? On what basis would such a word be spoken? A biblical case study presents
itself for examination: the welcome to the foreigners and eunuchs in Isaiah 56, apparently overturning both tradition and Torah. This study will concentrate primarily on the new word regarding eunuchs. According to Leviticus no one with “crushed testicles” shall “come near the curtain or approach the altar, because he has a blemish”(Lev 21:16-23). Deuteronomy’s prohibition is even more severe, denying such “blemished” persons
not only the priesthood but any participation in the worshiping community:

No one whose testicles are crushed or whose penis is cut off shall be admitted to
the assembly of the Lord.(Deut 23:1)

But, in Isaiah 56, the prophet speaks a new word: For thus says the Lord: To the eunuchs who keep my sabbaths, who choose the things that please me and hold fast my covenant, I will give, in my house and within my walls, a monument and a name better than sons and daughters; I will
give them an everlasting name that shall not be cut off.
(Isa 56: 4-5)

Indeed, along with the foreigners,

these I will bring to my holy mountain, and make them joyful in my house of prayer; their burnt offerings and their sacrifices will be accepted on my altar; for my house shall be called a house of prayer for all peoples.(Isa 56:7)

#3061
It seems as if many of the Early Church Fathers had their catamites; it was the way. Seems as if this was the Arian way too. This challenges the nature of Jesus. Jesus without sin and without a woman. Evidently, a man that used his tool was considered a man. Since Jesus did not use his tool he was considered effeminate or a natural eunuch (homosexual as we know them.) Where Jesus could have married Paul would not have been able to because of being an unnatural eunuch.

Natural eunuchs were left alone. Unnaturals were governed never to marry. What was illegal were men that forced their tool on other men. Hence the pedophilia. It was not unnatural to take a young boy. This pedophilia activity was throughout the Mediterranean and legal. What was illegal was to do another man and disgrace him. Oh ya, the upper class was exempt; as in, the youth and girls. Adultery was made a crime against the state; and still had much to do with property rights.

The Church had to define Jesus' divinity but this pails with the Church's problem with pederasty; still rampant with the Church today.

By ancient definition, a natural eunuch, was a man that was capable but not interested in women (homosexual today.) This made all priests fit the definition of being a homosexual. The definition of a man changed and men began to lose their lives; death by fire.

Politics once again defines homosexuality.

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 Kate Middleton Plots To Destroy Prince Harry an... (Feb '13) 1 hr victim 2
News Our recommendation: Springboro voters should sa... (Feb '08) 6 hr Pay your taxes 31,934
News Imam: No such thing as temporary marriage in Islam 9 hr Naman 10
News Bill Clinton tells a love story to make his cas... Wed Le Jimbo 4
News Bristol Palin: Breaking abstinence pledge again... (Jun '15) Jul 26 Keynes 12
News Ben Carson Warns Gay Couples Against Pushing Ba... (Jan '15) Jul 26 Divorce Lawyer 77
News Prince Harry Engaged: Marriage To Camilla Thurl... (Sep '14) Jul 25 hillary 2
More from around the web