Homosexuality and the Bible

Aug 15, 2011 | Posted by: Selecia Jones- JAX FL | Full story: www.smh.com.au

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.

Comments
19,961 - 19,980 of 24,751 Comments Last updated 9 hrs ago

“Busting Kimare's”

Since: Feb 13

Clitty

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#22203
Nov 11, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

KiMare wrote:
...
A defective failure of mating behavior, condemned by nature.
Prove it.

“Let the games begin. . .”

Since: Jun 13

Botany Bay

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#22204
Nov 11, 2013
 
Reverend Alan wrote:
<quoted text>
Your Christ-insanity is inherently harmful, unhealthy and demeaning.
I'll pay that one. LOLOL!

Since: Jun 13

Fairbanks, AK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#22205
Nov 11, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

RevKen wrote:
<quoted text>
I respectfully disagree. You have the ability to mov and change time and space, even if your personal influence seems limited in scope. The Angels respect this.
Rev. Ken
I see Genesis as an epic tale. A tale that says that God did this and that. My argument often concerning marriage is that the ancient Hebrew language did not have a word for marriage. So, marriage, once again is a doctrine. All references to marriage in the Bible depends on modernity defining the relationship that, and again, defines other aspects of the relationship with the word, divorce or adultery. I've not looked into the word, adultery, from the perspective of the original languages. Divorce is not the correct translation. What is important is that a divorce made a woman destitute. Adultery was not what we call adultery today. In OT times, adultery was an issue of property. To covet another's property was the sin. What is in the heart of those that would take another's property. This awareness is represents the intent of sin. Many other vices, catologs of vices represent what is sin in the plural. There is but one sin. Genesis 1:27 represents, sets the stage about what man feels God is all about. This is the relationship between God and man. This idea of relationships carries throughout the Bible; more so than sin. This is summed up by the Greatest Commandment.

What they did not get then they still do not get today.

All this relates to the condemnation of homosexuality. Honestly, God's Word has nothing to say about homosexuality. It has everything to say about virtues that apply to life.

Since: Jun 13

Fairbanks, AK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#22206
Nov 11, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

RevKen wrote:
<quoted text>
I respectfully disagree. You have the ability to mov and change time and space, even if your personal influence seems limited in scope. The Angels respect this.
Now, for purposes of conversation, let's take it back to the thread topic. If a person is born into this world having already assumed a sexual orientation that, perhaps inevitably, becomes a conscious awakening that will lead to same-sex relationship, what is the choice? Is it a "lifestyle choice?"
Rev. Ken
What I believe. There was no Fall. There was creation. There was no first parents. What I believe is that creation is our separation, estrangement from God. In death we will either return to God or remain separated. If there were 1st parents then God's command to multiply and fill the earth was accomplished by incest. If what we call marriage is not defined in the Bible and Christianity insists on marriage as God given then the one thing that is certain about male-female relationships is that males were allowed more than one wife. And, of course, wife was not a word in ancient Hebrew language. When it comes to understanding issues of same-sex marriage and homosexuality, the issue is about the relationship.

Since I am not a homosexual, I would be stepping into territory that I have no business speaking about. Homosexuality and relationships comes from within each. Just as it does for my heterosexual relationship.

Since: Jun 13

Fairbanks, AK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#22207
Nov 11, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

#4879
It is in man's nature to seek out the cause of something.“To know God is not disproportionate to created minds.”[Proportion implies a]“relationship and in a sense we are proportioned to God as effects to the cause and as partial realizations to what is fully actual.” Summa Theologiae, Thomas Aquinas, p. 26. Aquinas goes on to say more about God as we know God. So it is that we can know God but not comprehend God. What we perceive to know about God is limited by our limited experience as effects of the cause. We exist in God's Creation. The air we breath, the ground we walk on, what we can see and hear but most importantly our abilities to reason tells us that all existential qualities of our life allows us to know that there is a God. But with all our reasoning we cannot begin to comprehend God.

It could be argued that the Large Hadron Collider was built to find the God Particle. Is this man's attempt to comprehend God? After all, the greatest minds among us are those that understand our existence mathematically. Philosophers, theologians, authors of the Bible all have taken a stab at understanding Creation. I find some amazing resemblances from the likes of Biblical writers and philosophers in their explanations of Creation. From the book of Wisdom, of Sirach, Chapter 1, Praise of Wisdom:

1*+All wisdom comes from the Lord
and with him it remains forever.
2 The sand of the seashore, the drops of rain,
the days of eternity: who can number these?
3 Heaven's height, earth's breadth,
the depths of the abyss: who can explore
these?
4 Before all things else wisdom was created;
and prudent understanding, from eternity.
5* To whom has wisdom's root been revealed?
Who knows her subtleties?
6 There is but one, wise and truly awe-inspiring,
seated upon his throne:
7* It is the Lord; he created her,
has seen her and taken note of her;
8 He has poured her forth upon all his works,
upon every living thing according to his
bounty;
he has lavished her upon his friends.

NAB

Thomas Aquinas in his book Summa Theologiae, p. 23 says:“Only God is everywhere wholly and by nature. To exist everywhere belongs to the universe but with a different part in each place, not wholly. And if all that existed in the whole universe was a single grain of wheat, that grain of wheat would exist everywhere; but only under those circumstances, and not by nature.” Aquinas speaks of time and matter. If you were to read Aquinas you would begin to wonder if he had some advanced knowledge of Creation that he has briefly let on that he knows about.

Our sense of things, things being the effects of the cause, God, reaches only as far as our experience allows us to know God. We can know that God exists. It is by his grace that we know God better than by our own reasoning. So it is in revelation that we come to know of God which by no other means would come to us by natural reasoning. And although revelation cannot show us what God is, it does show us that unknown side of God that we strive to be like. The image of God, our likeness of God is a likeness we strive to be like. God's works, teaching and mostly his goodness. It is natural that we seek God's divinity. So it is with faith that we gain some kind of knowledge by assenting to a proposition, to something that is knowledgeable, to something we can believe. Faith is not understanding for it assents to the first cause that we are aware of and that cause is not God.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#22208
Nov 12, 2013
 

Judged:

1

akopen wrote:
<quoted text>
I see Genesis as an epic tale. A tale that says that God did this and that. My argument often concerning marriage is that the ancient Hebrew language did not have a word for marriage. So, marriage, once again is a doctrine. All references to marriage in the Bible depends on modernity defining the relationship that, and again, defines other aspects of the relationship with the word, divorce or adultery. I've not looked into the word, adultery, from the perspective of the original languages. Divorce is not the correct translation. What is important is that a divorce made a woman destitute. Adultery was not what we call adultery today. In OT times, adultery was an issue of property. To covet another's property was the sin. What is in the heart of those that would take another's property. This awareness is represents the intent of sin. Many other vices, catologs of vices represent what is sin in the plural. There is but one sin. Genesis 1:27 represents, sets the stage about what man feels God is all about. This is the relationship between God and man. This idea of relationships carries throughout the Bible; more so than sin. This is summed up by the Greatest Commandment.
What they did not get then they still do not get today.
All this relates to the condemnation of homosexuality. Honestly, God's Word has nothing to say about homosexuality. It has everything to say about virtues that apply to life.
Matthew 19.

Three types of eunuchs.

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#22209
Nov 12, 2013
 
akopen wrote:
<quoted text>
What I believe. There was no Fall. There was creation. There was no first parents. What I believe is that creation is our separation, estrangement from God. In death we will either return to God or remain separated. If there were 1st parents then God's command to multiply and fill the earth was accomplished by incest. If what we call marriage is not defined in the Bible and Christianity insists on marriage as God given then the one thing that is certain about male-female relationships is that males were allowed more than one wife. And, of course, wife was not a word in ancient Hebrew language. When it comes to understanding issues of same-sex marriage and homosexuality, the issue is about the relationship.
Since I am not a homosexual, I would be stepping into territory that I have no business speaking about. Homosexuality and relationships comes from within each. Just as it does for my heterosexual relationship.
Exactly. It is a teaching story about separation from the God head.

Since: Jun 13

Fairbanks, AK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#22210
Nov 12, 2013
 
"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 ...
|

Since: Jun 13

Fairbanks, AK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#22211
Nov 12, 2013
 
#3696
For example, the first interpreter of the story of Sodom and Gomorrah, the prophet Ezekiel, condemns Sodom not for homosexuality but for "pride, excess of food, and prosperous ease" and for failing to "aid the poor and needy" (Ezekiel 16:49). Nor does the story suggest that homosexuality is the problem. The Hebrew of Genesis 19 tells us that all the people of Sodom sought to "know" the two visitors: the people would have included the women, and they, like the men, died in the conflagration that destroyed their city. The problem is sexual violence, not homosexuality; attempted rape, not love.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/amyjill-levine/ ...

Since: Jun 13

Fairbanks, AK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#22212
Nov 12, 2013
 
Matthew 10:5-15:

5. Jesus sent these men on mission as the Twelve, after giving them the following instructions:
“Do not visit pagan territory and do not enter a Samaritan town. 6.* Go instead after the lost sheep of the house of Israel. 7.* As you go, make this announcement:'The reign of God is at hand!' 8. Cure the sick, raise the dead, heal the leprous, expel demons. The gift you have received, give as a gift. 9.* Provide yourselves with neither gold nor silver nor copper in your belts; 10.* no traveling bag, no change of shirt, no sandals, no walking staff. The workman, after all, is worth his keep.”
11.*“Look for a worthy person in every town or village you come to and stay with him until you leave. 12.+ As you enter his home bless it. 13. If the home is deserving, your blessing will descend on it. If it is not, your blessing will return to you. 14.* If anyone does not receive you or listen to what you have to say, leave that house, or town, and once outside it shake its dust from your feet. 15.* I assure you, it will go easier for the region of Sodom and Gomorrah on the day of judgment than it will for that town.”

Here we have Jesus' instructions to his disciples on their missionary activity. Verse 23 instructs the disciples “that the divine plan of Israel's salvation will not be completed before the parousia because of hostility.”

Jesus' reference to Sodom in Matthew 10: 5-15 is a reference to the rejection of the strangers, guests of Lot in Sodom. This reference is about the lack of hospitality by the Sodomites.

Other references can be found in Isaiah 1:10-17; Jeremiah 23:14; Zephaniah 2:8-11.

Since: Jun 13

Fairbanks, AK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#22213
Nov 12, 2013
 
Last post's documentation: #3701. These numbers represent past posts in this forum.

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#22214
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 ...
|
Good point. According to Hebrew Scripture defining eunuch, Jesus was gay. There are other historical arguments however. Jesus could have been a bastard and not allowed to marry legally. Some speculate that Mary Magdalene was his significant other. Some speculate he survived the crucifixion and lived on having children and died in India.

Since: Jun 13

Fairbanks, AK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#22215
Nov 12, 2013
 

Judged:

1

#3686
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/amyjill-levine/ ...

One approach is to begin with the broad picture of what the Bible says about physical intimacy. Before addressing the various "Thou shalt nots," it is often salutary to look at the "Thou shalts" and the "Thou might want to's." For example, although traditionally read as a love song between God and Israel, or Christ and the Church, the Song of Solomon/Song of Songs celebrates physical intimacy between a man and a woman. Even Sarah, Abraham's menopausal wife, speaks of the pleasure she will have with her husband (Genesis 18:12, a verse easily remembered given the cannons in Tchaikovsky's 1812 overture). Ancient Hebrew women were not expected to lie back and think of Torah.
A second is to acknowledge that the Bible is often less a book of answers than a book that helps us ask the right questions. From the narratives of rape, we learn to listen for the voice of the victim; we find that sexual abuse happens in the best of families, including that of King David; we realize that revenge taken on the perpetrator of sexual abuse leads to more abuse, to war, to death; we discover that this crime, like that of adultery, impacts more than just the people directly involved: it impacts their extended families, and society as a whole. And it means knowing that the perpetrators as well as their families are also human beings, also in the image and likeness of the divine.
Third, we must read carefully. This means not simply looking at what the text says: it requires seeking accurate translation, knowing to the best of our ability why the text was written and what it meant to its original audience, determining how it has been interpreted over time and what other passages say concerning the same subject.
For example, the first interpreter of the story of Sodom and Gomorrah, the prophet Ezekiel, condemns Sodom not for homosexuality but for "pride, excess of food, and prosperous ease" and for failing to "aid the poor and needy" (Ezekiel 16:49). Nor does the story suggest that homosexuality is the problem. The Hebrew of Genesis 19 tells us that all the people of Sodom sought to "know" the two visitors: the people would have included the women, and they, like the men, died in the conflagration that destroyed their city. The problem is sexual violence, not homosexuality; attempted rape, not love.
As for the Levitical commandments typically cited as prohibiting homosexuality, the Hebrew is not as clear as some claim, and the historicizing rationales typically proposed for the injunctions - e.g., keeping up the birth rate, avoiding Canaanite practices -- lack foundation. Some readers even find the Levitical codes trumped by earlier pronouncements: given that Genesis 2:18 states that it is not good for the human being to be alone, they cannot support condemning gay people to lives of singleness and solitude.
Fourth, we do well to recognize that biblical standards are not always our standards, and nor should they be. The Bible makes adultery a capital crime; if that legislation were put into practice, we'd knock out a third of our population. King Solomon had 700 wives and 300 concubines; we become apoplectic over bigamy.
Fifth, we should continually reassess our views. If we ignore tradition, experience, science, and the personal testimony of our neighbors and look only to Scripture, we become bibliolators: we turn the Bible into an idol. And if we listen to those with whom we disagree rather than dismiss them as benighted literalists or atheistic relativists, then at the very least we might be able to avoid the demonization that usually comes with the culture wars.

Amy-Jill Levine and Douglas Knight
The Bible and Sexuality

This Blogger's Books from

The Jewish Annotated New Testament

The Meaning of the Bible: What the Jewish Scriptures and Christian Old Testament Can Teach Us
by Douglas A. Knight, Amy-Jill Levine

“THERE IS NO GOD”

Since: Feb 09

Northern California

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#22216
Nov 12, 2013
 

Judged:

1

KiMare wrote:
And still, ss couples are only ever mutually sterile pointlessly duplicate gendered halves of marriage.
A defective failure of mating behavior, condemned by nature.
Your Christ-insanity KiMare is a defective failure and a distortion of the reality of life on earth. Your insanity and lack of moral responsibility to the biosphere which enabled our ancestors to arise in is criminal. Your existence is a crime against humanity, the biosphere and the solar system.

When you die you have nothing to survive the death of your planetary body, therefore you shall cease to exist because you die like a dog.

You are a pathetic excuse of a human being, but you are exactly as Nature and the Universe need you to be. If you weren't morally bankrupt and defective, you might learn about the terror of the situation.

Your only responsibility is to remember to flush the toilet, can you remember to do that?

“THERE IS NO GOD”

Since: Feb 09

Northern California

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#22217
Nov 12, 2013
 
KiMare wrote:
And still, ss couples are only ever mutually sterile pointlessly duplicate gendered halves of marriage.
A defective failure of mating behavior, condemned by nature.
Oh I see, the mistresses didn't give you any last night and now you visit here to take your frustrations out on others. What a typical KKKristian you are.

“THERE IS NO GOD”

Since: Feb 09

Northern California

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#22218
Nov 12, 2013
 
Joe DeCaro wrote:
<quoted text>
... can't speak on behalf of all Christians or any religious denominations that don't subscribe to his beliefs about predestination.
However, you're free to believe that you are foreordained to look foolish on this thread, but that's another choice on your part.
<quoted text>
But Santa, since you can't even prove that YOU exist, how can you prove that anyone else doesn't?
Clearly you are not capable of having a serious discussion.

How do you experience your reaction to the fact that you find yourself alive on the surface of the planet earth?

Since: Jun 13

Fairbanks, AK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#22219
Nov 12, 2013
 
#3683
Rom. 1:26; For this reason God gave them up to degrading (atimias) passions. Their women exchanged natural (physiken) intercourse for unnatural (para physin).

Rom. 11:24; For if you were cut from what is by nature a wild olive tree, and grafted, contrary to nature, into a cultivated one, how much more will they who belong to it by nature be grafted back into their own olive tree.

Notice that the words "unnatural" and "what is by nature" are both translated from the same Greek word "para physin." What is not evident is what Paul meant by para physin in Rom. 1:26. But then it is evident, Paul used, "para physin." And para physin means "what is by nature."

What is by nature is in reference to homosexual acts. Evidently, is not what is unnatural. Another translation would be "atypical."

Although, verse 26 does not refer to lesbianism verse 27 links with 26 and therefore must represent both gay and lesbian sex.

Rom. 1:27; and the males likewise gave up natural relations with females and burned with lust for one another. Males did shameful things with males and thus received in their own persons the due penalty for their perversity.

So, what was given up for "natural" (physiken)? "Unnatural"(para physin) or "what is by nature." What was the nature of men at that time? Men to have sex with men was natural when Paul wrote this verse. Paul's point here is that Christ was neutral about human sexuality.

“THERE IS NO GOD”

Since: Feb 09

Northern California

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#22220
Nov 12, 2013
 
RevKen wrote:
<quoted text>
"By his Power, God cherishes and guards the World which he made and by his Providence, rules its individual Parts.... Humans are unable to fully comprehend why God performs any particular action, but whatever good or evil people may practice, their efforts always result in the execution of God's will and judgments."
The biosphere and all life in it is exactly the way the Solar System needs it to be. I say that human life is an insane asylum but it has to be this way so it is wrong for me to say that like anyone can "do" anything about it. Life has to go wrong for each of us to satisfy cosmic purposes and we all suffer unnecessarily however if we intentionally suffer we can as an individual live free of what the Universe has made possible for us.

If you look at a cocoon and refuse to accept its evolution into a butterfly, that is how you are looking at humanity. You see defective people as they are and I see them as what they can become via a personal psychological evolution.

It all starts with giving up the wrong ideas each of us has about ourselves. The idea that we can do. We can't do anything and nothing can happen in sleep.

Since: Jun 13

Fairbanks, AK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#22221
Nov 12, 2013
 
cont.

A lot is at stake here if verse 26 does not refer to lesbianism because if not, then nowhere in the Bible is lesbianism referred to.

On the other hand, if the Bible does not refer to lesbianism then what was referred to was some heterosexual practice.

And if it does refer to homosexual acts the conclusion must still refer to the act to have no ethical condemnation; what is by nature.

In every usage of the word "atimia" Paul is not referring to moral judgement. When Paul refers to "degrading" passions, he is not referring to what is wrong but what does not have social approval.

Verse 27 uses the word "aschemosyne" translated shameless and means "not according to form." So what Paul is saying is that it is not appropriate.

There is a separation between verses 24-27(sexual matters) and verses 28-32(list of evils.) Paul was really writing about two different things. Speaking about things that were unconventional and things that were wrong.

Verse 31,32 wraps Paul's message up saying:
31
They are senseless, faithless, heartless, ruthless.
32
Although they know the just decree of God that all who practice such things deserve death, they not only do them but give approval to those who practice them.

But what was it that Paul was talking about? I refer to footnotes:

1,18-32:The conversion of the Gentiles through the gospel preaching constituted the divine indictment against paganism, which error had benighted and moral depravity had corrupted. It was the evil will of the pagan world that provoked the divine anger and abandonment (v18). Contrary to nature itself which provides evidence of God's existence, power, and divinity through creation(19f), pagan society misread the evidence, fashioned gods of its own that could not exert any moral restraint, and indulged its perverse desires through every kind of wickedness(21-32; cf Wis 13, 1-14, 31). NAB

So, what Paul was referring to was pagan idol worship just as it was in Leviticus.

Quotes and ideas above were taken from Daniel A. Helminiak's book, What the Bible Really Says About Homosexuality. And yes he was a priest in the Catholic Church and he is homosexual.

“THERE IS NO GOD”

Since: Feb 09

Northern California

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#22222
Nov 12, 2013
 
RevKen wrote:
<quoted text>
It is also about the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil and the ramifications of ingesting the fruit of this tree.
Rev. Ken
Ah yes, the red pill or the blue pill.

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Type in your comments below
Name
(appears on your post)
Comments
Characters left: 4000
Type the numbers you see in the image on the right:

Please note by clicking on "Post Comment" 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.

•••
•••