God and Gays: The Rite to Bless Same-sex Unions

Jul 16, 2012 | Posted by: roboblogger | Full story: Time

There is something by now familiar, even reassuring, about what happens in my church every third summer.

Comments (Page 37)

Showing posts 721 - 740 of1,053
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:
Cool Hand Luke

Scranton, PA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#768
Nov 15, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

They are all pretty much the same ,Here what the new same sex marriage laws say:

.

2012 Presidential General Election Question Text
Last Updated 11/07/2012 03:06:01 PM

Return to Election Result Index
NR: not reported

Return to State Ballot Question(s)

Civil Marriage Protection Act (Ch. 2 of the 2012 Legislative Session)
Referendum Petition
Question 06

Establishes that Maryland's civil marriage laws allow gay and lesbian couples to obtain a civil marriage license, provided they are not otherwise prohibited from marrying; protects clergy from having to perform any particular marriage ceremony in violation of their religious beliefs; affirms that each religious faith has exclusive control over its own theological doctrine regarding who may marry within that faith; and provides that religious organizations and certain related entities are not required to provide goods, services, or benefits to an individual related to the celebration or promotion of marriage in violation of their religious beliefs.
For the Referred Law
Against the Referred Law

Since: Jun 11

AOL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#769
Nov 15, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Joe DeCaro wrote:
<quoted text>
The original writings of the New Testament were Greek and Aramaic, and homosexual is a Greek-Latin construct.
"How does the Bible address homosexuality - the word didn't even exist until 1869? The word first appeared in Germany to describe the theory that from birth some people are predisposed toward persons of the same sex. Since the biblical languages (Hebrew and Greek) had no words for heterosexual or homosexual, it is anachronistic and misleading when homosexual is used to translate a biblical text. It is wrong to proclaim the biblical view of homosexuality since there is none. This violates the integrity of the individual texts and the biblical witness as a whole. Each reference to what is today homosexuality must be read in the light of the particular literary, cultural, and historic contexts of any particular passage.

If Jesus ever said anything about homosexuality, it is not recorded in the Bible, even mistranslated. He did, however, speak extensively on God's unconditional love. Yet instead of dwelling on biblical love, Christians have historically been more concerned with obscure passages of Levitical cleanliness codes and Paul's misunderstood comments in Romans. Instead of focusing on the incredible injustice and hatred demonstrated by Christians and others, tying to deny homosexuals even basic civil rights, people appear more concerned with the specific homosexual acts between consenting adults who are naturally have a homosexual orientation. As James B. Nelson notes, the Bible more clearly advocates a "love ethic" rather than a "sex ethic." (Rev. Dr. Mel White)

Since: Jun 11

AOL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#770
Nov 15, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

"I Cor 6:9, no way refers to homosexuality. The original Greek word often quoted as sexual immorality, Paul used was "porneia" which means "a harlot for hire". In Corinth in the temples of Venus, the principal deity of Corinth, where Christians went to worship, a thousand public prostitutes were kept at public expense to glorify and act as surrogates for the fertility Gods. This sex with the pagan Gods is what Paul was talking about - fornication is an admitted mistranslation and has nothing to do with gays or singles sex. This rendering reflected the bias of the translators rather than an accurate translation of Paul's words to a culture of 2000 years ago worshipping pagan sex gods." (Rev. Dr. Mel White)

DNF

“Liberty AND Justice”

Since: Apr 07

Born in Newark, Ohio

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#771
Nov 15, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Hide-n-go seek wrote:
<quoted text>So, you wiggled into your brain that the 98% straight population should somehow account for more suicides. Well, you be wrong, since the 2% gays account for 53% of all suicides.
Sources?

DNF

“Liberty AND Justice”

Since: Apr 07

Born in Newark, Ohio

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#772
Nov 15, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Hide-n-go seek wrote:
<quoted text>Are you suggesting that he hates rapists, pedophiles and murderers and you love them? We all hope that your hatred and bigotry does not need you to a typical gay demise, suicide? Honestly, don't do it, simply be cured.
If the cure means I end up a whining lying troll like you, no thanks.

“... truth will out.”

Since: May 08

Stratford, Connecticut.

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#773
Nov 15, 2012
 

Judged:

2

1

1

Robsan5 wrote:
... What was the ancient Aramaic, Latin or Greek word for 'homosexual'?
There was none, hence the following from Romans 1:26-27:

"Because of this (worshipping things instead of God), God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion."

Obviously the author is describing what we today call homosexuals, specifically lesbians and gays.

Since: Jun 11

AOL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#774
Nov 15, 2012
 

Judged:

2

2

1

Joe DeCaro wrote:
<quoted text>
There was none, hence the following from Romans 1:26-27:
"Because of this (worshipping things instead of God), God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion."
Obviously the author is describing what we today call homosexuals, specifically lesbians and gays.
The only thing obvious is that is your interpretation. Others who have spent their entire lives studying the bible disagree:

"Romans 1:26-27 mentions homosexual acts performed by people who are clearly described as heterosexual. The men in the NT patriarchal culture exerted dominance not only over women, but over younger males as well. The nature of homosexual acts in the Bible are so very different from what we know as homosexuality today that the passages have no application to today's homosexuality. Such practices as in NT times simply no longer exist. Alleged references to homosexuality in I Corinthians and I Timothy are the inventions of anti-gay translators. They are not in the original Greek texts." (Rev. Dr. Mel White)

DNF

“Liberty AND Justice”

Since: Apr 07

Born in Newark, Ohio

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#775
Nov 15, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Joe DeCaro wrote:
<quoted text>
There was none, hence the following from Romans 1:26-27:
"Because of this (worshipping things instead of God), God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion."
Obviously the author is describing what we today call homosexuals, specifically lesbians and gays.
Look we all know you're a Catholic and therefore use Paul as your Messiah more than Jesus.

But since you like Paul so much how come the Church ignored what he wrote to Titus about obeying local authorities when it decided to stop Same Sex adoptions?

Put them in mind to be subject to principalities and powers, to obey magistrates, to be ready to every good work,

2 To speak evil of no man, to be no brawlers, but gentle, shewing all meekness unto all men.

3 For we ourselves also were sometimes foolish, disobedient, deceived, serving divers lusts and pleasures, living in malice and envy, hateful, and hating one another.

4 But after that the kindness and love of God our Saviour toward man appeared,

5 Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost;

That last part sort of really messes up your whole "sinful acts" rant from Romans. Also note in Romans it says it was GOD'S WILL that these people act that way.

So basically your blaming God for making people gay and lesbian.

Thanks for the help!

“Good day to you!”

Since: Oct 08

Earth

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#776
Nov 15, 2012
 

Judged:

2

RevKen wrote:
<quoted text>
No. I did not miss that fact. I made the point on purpose to show how useless such stereotyping really is. Neither you nor I or anybody else can truly gauge another person's experience. It is unique and infinitely so.
We can objectively agree on what is important. We can commit our allegiance and will to defend the interests of another. We can make up reasonable rules and adhere to common guidelines for the welfare and produtive capacities of each other. We can even try walking in the other man's shoes for a distance to develop some appreciation for his or her experience.
But, ultimately we are individuals. If then, we desire to share our life with another person and that person desires to commit to that same sharing then I see no reason to stand in their way of doing so.
In fact, as a priest, I will agree to bless their union.
Rev. Ken
A priest and disciple of Christ Jesus.
Amen to that brother! lol. ;)
Listen, I can appreciate you bucking the system most of us use ourselves to define each other, I even applaud you.
Concerning what people desire wedding wise, heck I'll support human to animal weddings if need be. I think anyone should be able to wed who or whatever they wish.
But the bible doesn't support such liberal thinking. It never has. The Bible supports one form of marriage by God's own words and that is it. People have a hard time dealing with that fact who want to use the Bible to support same sex marriage.
If someone wants to support same sex marriage fine and dandy, but get real and don't use the Bible because the Bible hasn't and doesn't support it. Not tough to understand really.
Robsan5

Modesto, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#777
Nov 15, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

No Surprise wrote:
<quoted text>
Amen to that brother! lol. ;)
Listen, I can appreciate you bucking the system most of us use ourselves to define each other, I even applaud you.
Concerning what people desire wedding wise, heck I'll support human to animal weddings if need be. I think anyone should be able to wed who or whatever they wish.
But the bible doesn't support such liberal thinking. It never has. The Bible supports one form of marriage by God's own words and that is it. People have a hard time dealing with that fact who want to use the Bible to support same sex marriage.
If someone wants to support same sex marriage fine and dandy, but get real and don't use the Bible because the Bible hasn't and doesn't support it. Not tough to understand really.
Still can't find your point, NoClue? Did you try the lost and found at Walmart?
And could you explain again how you figured out that 90% of polygamists are actually against polygamy?

Robert

“Good day to you!”

Since: Oct 08

Earth

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#779
Nov 15, 2012
 

Judged:

2

1

Not Yet Equal wrote:
<quoted text>
No. "He concludes" means that after a through examination of the evidence over the course of many years, the evidence is clear. "He concludes the Bible says absolutely nothing about homosexuality being sinful when you examine the actual Hebrew/Greek texts."
Again, "Several books already exist attempting to demonstrate that the Christian Bible does not, in fact, condemn consenting-adult homosexuality." I gave you references to only 3 of those many books which explain; "what the Bible forbids is acts of lust, rape, idolatry, violation of religious purity obligations, or pederasty, but not condemnation of homosexuality in relationships of mutual respect and love." ( Dr. James B. Nelson, Professor of Christian Ethics, United Theological Seminary)
Your desire to find excuses to ignore the Golden Rule, are supported only by mistranslations and misinterpretations of the original texts, not the original texts themselves.
lol...not excuses. An examination of the two sides is what I presented and people don't like those facts.
Those against same sex actions will point out this verse and that verse to support their position. They will sometimes point out how God went to extra lengths, to "out-law" any form of sexual relations outside that of a heterosexual union/marriage. Insinuating that though it doesn't state it, homosexual relations should be accepted as part of those other sexual laws given not to do, even if they aren't mentioned.
Those for same sex relations that wish to use the Bible for support, they use "missing evidence" as evidence for their theory that if God din't speak against it, it has to be okay to do. But there's a lot of problems with that thinking.
My point is of all the "anti-sex" laws that God did give to mankind, it makes no sense that he would forbid heteros from non-married sex but would be okay with married/unmarried same sex persons having sex. There is no logic to that. That's like saying God forbid animal sex between animals and women but he's okay with men and animals doing it because he didn't specifically include men in that law.
See, the Hebrew language didn't recognize our modern word "incest" or our modern definition of it, just as those idiots that like to argue that the word homosexual or it's modern definition isn't in the Bible's original tongue. The Bible in it's prohibitions of sex between related individuals, it says nothing of a mother having sex with a son or a father having sex with a daughter.
So when someone wants to use "missing" evidence to support a theory, they better have some strong circumstantial evidence for their theory as others can use it the way they do :)
Robsan5

Modesto, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#780
Nov 15, 2012
 

Judged:

2

No Surprise wrote:
<quoted text>
lol...not excuses. An examination of the two sides is what I presented and people don't like those facts.
Those against same sex actions will point out this verse and that verse to support their position. They will sometimes point out how God went to extra lengths, to "out-law" any form of sexual relations outside that of a heterosexual union/marriage. Insinuating that though it doesn't state it, homosexual relations should be accepted as part of those other sexual laws given not to do, even if they aren't mentioned.
Those for same sex relations that wish to use the Bible for support, they use "missing evidence" as evidence for their theory that if God din't speak against it, it has to be okay to do. But there's a lot of problems with that thinking.
My point is of all the "anti-sex" laws that God did give to mankind, it makes no sense that he would forbid heteros from non-married sex but would be okay with married/unmarried same sex persons having sex. There is no logic to that. That's like saying God forbid animal sex between animals and women but he's okay with men and animals doing it because he didn't specifically include men in that law.
See, the Hebrew language didn't recognize our modern word "incest" or our modern definition of it, just as those idiots that like to argue that the word homosexual or it's modern definition isn't in the Bible's original tongue. The Bible in it's prohibitions of sex between related individuals, it says nothing of a mother having sex with a son or a father having sex with a daughter.
So when someone wants to use "missing" evidence to support a theory, they better have some strong circumstantial evidence for their theory as others can use it the way they do :)
Hey Genius, still having problems with logic? Terminal No Point disease strikes again.

Robert

Since: Mar 07

The entire US of A

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#781
Nov 16, 2012
 
No Surprise wrote:
<quoted text>
.
Those for same sex relations that wish to use the Bible for support, they use "missing evidence" as evidence for their theory that if God din't speak against it, it has to be okay to do. But there's a lot of problems with that thinking.
..........
You can't deny people the ability to marry, and them condemn them for having sex out of wedlock.

That would be very silly and very hypocritical.

Not to mention, of course, that the VAST majority of straight folks, Christian or otherwise, ALSO have sex out of wedlock at some point in their lives.

Since: Mar 07

The entire US of A

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#782
Nov 16, 2012
 

Judged:

1

No Surprise wrote:
<quoted text>
.....
See, the Hebrew language didn't recognize our modern word "incest" or our modern definition of it, just as those idiots that like to argue that the word homosexual or it's modern definition isn't in the Bible's original tongue. The Bible in it's prohibitions of sex between related individuals, it says nothing of a mother having sex with a son or a father having sex with a daughter.
........
Actually, the Bible supports incest.

Who married Adam's sons and daughters? How were Lot's daughters going to re-populate the earth after the destruction of their town? How did Noah's kids re-populate the earth?

What does the Bible's explicit support of incest have to do with gay folks and straight folks who are NOT interested in having sex with relatives?

“... truth will out.”

Since: May 08

Stratford, Connecticut.

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#784
Nov 16, 2012
 

Judged:

1

Not Yet Equal wrote:
The only thing obvious is that is your interpretation ...
Speaking of obvious ...

Not Yet Equal said in the Gay/Lesbian Forum ...
Not Yet Equal wrote:
"Romans 1:26-27 mentions homosexual acts performed by people who are clearly described as heterosexual. The men in the NT patriarchal culture exerted dominance not only over women, but over younger males as well. The nature of homosexual acts in the Bible are so very different from what we know as homosexuality today that the passages have no application to today's homosexuality ...
LoL! If that's true, then "biblical" murder and adultery also have no application to contemporary sins either.

BTW, so-called heterosexuals who perform homosexual acts are now called bi-sexuals, as in GLB ...

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#785
Nov 16, 2012
 

Judged:

2

2

1

Joe DeCaro wrote:
<quoted text>
There was none, hence the following from Romans 1:26-27:
"Because of this (worshipping things instead of God), God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion."
Obviously the author is describing what we today call homosexuals, specifically lesbians and gays.
Saul's etiology has been superceded by subsequent discoveries ...

much as his claims to apostleship have been superceded by the demonstration of fact that his predictions of immanent 2nd coming have been.

Not just a false prophet, but a medical quack as well.

“Plays well with others.”

Since: Jun 07

LIVING WELL*THE BEST REVENGE

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#786
Nov 16, 2012
 

Judged:

1

THE DIOCESE OF GEORGIA WILL NOW ALLOW SAME SEX BLESSING!!!! MY HOME STATE!!!!!!!!!

http://myemail.constantcontact.com/eCrozier.h...

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#787
Nov 16, 2012
 

Judged:

1

Selecia Jones- JAX FL wrote:
THE DIOCESE OF GEORGIA WILL NOW ALLOW SAME SEX BLESSING!!!! MY HOME STATE!!!!!!!!!
http://myemail.constantcontact.com/eCrozier.h...
THhs needs a thread on the Religion Forum.

Georgia?

I hope they have arson insurance.

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#788
Nov 16, 2012
 

Judged:

1

Quest wrote:
<quoted text>
Actually, the Bible supports incest.
Who married Adam's sons and daughters? How were Lot's daughters going to re-populate the earth after the destruction of their town? How did Noah's kids re-populate the earth?
What does the Bible's explicit support of incest have to do with gay folks and straight folks who are NOT interested in having sex with relatives?
Don't forget the Levirate Law.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Levirate_marriag...

Since: Jun 11

AOL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#789
Nov 16, 2012
 

Judged:

2

2

1

Joe DeCaro wrote:
<quoted text>
Speaking of obvious ...
Not Yet Equal said in the Gay/Lesbian Forum ...
<quoted text>
LoL! If that's true, then "biblical" murder and adultery also have no application to contemporary sins either.
BTW, so-called heterosexuals who perform homosexual acts are now called bi-sexuals, as in GLB ...
Murder is the same. It takes the life of another without their consent.
Adultery remains the same in that it violates a vow between two people, harming the other person against their wishes.

Sexual orientation is an enduring pattern of both physical and emotional attraction to one or both sexes. Pagan ritual prostitution did not necessarily include attraction but rather dominance and ritual observance. As Rev. Dr. White explains, "The nature of homosexual acts in the Bible are so very different from what we know as homosexuality today that the passages have no application to today's homosexuality. Such practices as in NT times simply no longer exist." The closest comparison is prison sex, where physical and emotional attraction in not necessarily involved, but dominance, control, and availability are the determining factors. No enduring pattern of attraction need be involved.

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

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Showing posts 721 - 740 of1,053
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:
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.

•••
•••
Enter and win $5000
•••
•••