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.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#22319 Nov 16, 2013
obedientgirl85 wrote:
The bible may raise issues with homosexuality but you will all find it does restrict a man from having sex with his daughter or his spouses daughter and it does not prevent a woman from having sex with her father or her mothers spouse (aka step father)
While homosexuality may not be allowed, God allows and encourages a loving, sexual relationship between a father and his daughter! This because it is natural for a girl to want her daddy to love her and teach her about all aspects in life including sexuality... She should try to serve and please her father as she would her future husband, and just like her husband will, her father has the right to access and use her body as he wishes! When a man marries her mother he also inherits that right! Love and sex between a father and daughter is healthy and natural!
You bring a whole new meaning to down under...

Hey AK, what say you (with documentation)?

I'd love to hear!

Since: Feb 09

Location hidden

#22320 Nov 16, 2013
RevKen wrote:
<quoted text>
Don't know whether or not you profess to be an atheist.
But, your spelling is highly questionable.
And it is irritating to read. English is my second language and I do miss a few things occasionally and have to ask for someone to explain them to me, but these people who are illiterate and expect to be taken seriously "it boggles the mind".

This is the kind of thing that happens when people are so lazy that they deliver their children to the Government each day for the Government to "educate" them.

I would never send any of my kids to a Government run school.

Since: Feb 09

Location hidden

#22321 Nov 16, 2013
Hellfirestorm85 wrote:
Sorry I thought you guys were honest people but I was wrong.
You are wrong about a whole lot of things. The problem is that you are unable to make yourself clear.

Since: Feb 09

Location hidden

#22322 Nov 16, 2013
RevKen wrote:
<quoted text>
Jesus is not a warship.
The USS Enterprise is a warship.
Actually the Klingon star ships are warships or war birds as they are called. The "IKS Bortas," a Vor'cha-class war bird is still in active duty.

The USS Enterprise however was a ship of exploration.

Since: Feb 09

Location hidden

#22323 Nov 16, 2013
O-F-G-G-A-O-Y-D-L-T wrote:
OH MY FRICKIN GOSH!!!! GET ALL OF YOUR DAMNED LIVES TOGETHER !!!!!! GOD DOESNT EXIST. AND JESUS IS JUST ANOTHER MAN BORN ON THIS PLANET THAT DIED ON A CROSS WITH 2 OTHER MEN. GREAT. Therefore,, YOU ALL NEED 5O GET YOUR LIVES TOGETHER!!!!!!!
I doubt seriously that such a being as Jesus ever actually existed. One of the biggest clues are all the Christian forgeries and insertions into ancient writings. The only mention we have of him are the four contradictory gospels.

Dionysus c. 186 BCE

--born of a virgin on December 25 and, as the Holy Child, was placed in a manger.
--a traveling teacher who performed miracles.
--rode in a triumphal procession on an ass.
-- a sacred king killed and eaten in an eucharistic ritual for fecundity and purification.
--rose from the dead on March 25.
--the God of the Vine, and turned water into wine.
--called “King of Kings” and “God of Gods.”
--considered the “Only Begotten Son,” Savior,”“Redeemer,”“Sin Bearer,” Anointed One,” and the “Alpha and Omega.”
--identified with the Ram or Lamb.
--His sacrificial title of “Dendrites” or “Young Man of the Tree” indicates he was hung on a tree or crucified.

Since: Feb 09

Location hidden

#22324 Nov 16, 2013
Pock Suppet wrote:
Other than the bible, there is no corroborating evidence whatever that Jesus even existed. Of what does appear in the bible attributed to Jesus, nothing at all is written at the time he is supposed to have lived. The earliest gospels are dated to at least 60 years after the alleged crucifixion.
Then there is the problem that the character and life of Jesus bears an overwhelming and extraordinary resemblance to a number of other entities drawn from contemporaneous myths and religions of the Middle East region.
This is all too much of a stretch for me, I'm afraid.
Until someone can come up with credible evidence to the contrary, Jesus will remain a fictional character, and a fictional character, by definition, cannot be divine.
Before you take this explanation personally, I have no problem with your believing something which I do not.
BINGO! Early Christians realized as much which accounts for all the forgeries in ancient literature.

Eusebius said that it is lawful to lie and cheat for the cause of Christ: "I have repeated whatever may rebound to the glory, and suppressed all that could tend to the disgrace of our religion" (Chp. 31, Book 12 of Prae Paratio Evangelica).

Since: Feb 09

Location hidden

#22325 Nov 16, 2013
Pock Suppet wrote:
Is KiMare on holidays?
My best entertainment is in winding him up, and he hasn't been around for a while.
Lots of people have been experiencing internet problems. I can no longer use IE to send email. They have sent several fixes or patches but so far none of them have fixed the problem.

Of course it could just be that he got tired of having his ass kicked and moved into discussion where his dog and pony show won't be challenged and exposed for the ruse it is.

Since: Feb 09

Location hidden

#22326 Nov 16, 2013
obedientgirl85 wrote:
The bible may raise issues with homosexuality but you will all find it does restrict a man from having sex with his daughter or his spouses daughter and it does not prevent a woman from having sex with her father or her mothers spouse (aka step father)
While homosexuality may not be allowed, God allows and encourages a loving, sexual relationship between a father and his daughter! This because it is natural for a girl to want her daddy to love her and teach her about all aspects in life including sexuality... She should try to serve and please her father as she would her future husband, and just like her husband will, her father has the right to access and use her body as he wishes! When a man marries her mother he also inherits that right! Love and sex between a father and daughter is healthy and natural!
Chapter and verse please.

1 COR. 7:36 American Standard Version, ("But if a man thinketh that he behaveth himself unseemly toward his virgin daughter...and if need so requireth, let him do what he will; he sinneth not; let them marry"--(American Standard Version)

Here God tells us that if a man wants to MOLEST his virgin daughter doing so is NOT a sin but he should marry her before he molests her.

American Standard Version
American Standard Version
American Standard Version
American Standard Version
American Standard Version
American Standard Version
American Standard Version
American Standard Version
American Standard Version
American Standard Version
American Standard Version
American Standard Version
American Standard Version

Since: Feb 09

Location hidden

#22327 Nov 16, 2013
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
You are an idiot spouting ignorance.
pot/kettle

Since: Feb 09

Location hidden

#22328 Nov 16, 2013
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
The Bible is not the only evidence that Jesus existed.
Prove it.

The first and probably the most notable comes from the Jewish historian, Josephus, who allegedly said, "Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man, for he was a doer of wonderful works, a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews, and many of the Gentiles. He was the Christ, and when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men among us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him; for he appeared to them alive again the third day; as the divine prophets had foretold there and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him. And the tribe of Christians so named from him are not extinct at this day" (Jewish Antiquities, Book 18, Chp. 3, Sec.3). The problems inherent in this paragraph are numerous and fatal to its credibility:(1) The alleged author, Josephus, was a devout Jew which would cause anyone familiar with the basic principles of Judaism to ask: Would a devout Jew imply that a man was not a man, that he was divine? Would he say that a man did miracles, was the Christ, and rose from the dead? And would a devout Jew say the messianic prophecies expressly referred to a man at that time?(2) The works of Josephus are voluminous and exhaustive. They comprise nearly 20 books. Whole pages are devoted to petty robbers and obscure seditious leaders. Nearly 40 chapters are devoted to a single king. Yet,Jesus is dismissed with a mere dozen lines.(3) The passage is not found in the early copies of Josephus. Not until the Ecclesiastical History of Eusebius (320 A.D.) do we come across it. This is the same Eusebius who said that it is lawful to lie and cheat for the cause of Christ: "I have repeated whatever may rebound to the glory, and suppressed all that could tend to the disgrace of our religion" (Chp. 31, Book 12 of Prae Paratio Evangelica).(4) The early Christian fathers such as Justin Martyr, Tertullian, Clement of Alexandria, and Origen were acquainted with what Josephus wrote and it seems reasonable to conclude that they would have quoted this passage had it existed. Apparently Eusebius was the first to use it because it didn't exist during the 2nd and 3rd centuries. Chrysostom often referred to Josephus and it's highly unlikely he would have omitted the paragraph had it been extant. Photius did not quote the text though he had three articles concerning Josephus and even expressly stated that Josephus, being a Jew, had not taken the least notice of Christ.(5) Neither Justin in his dialogue with Trypho, the Jew, nor Origen against Celsus ever mentioned this passage. Neither Tertullian nor Cyprian ever quoted Josephus as a witness in their controversies with Jews and pagans and Origen expressly stated that Josephus, who had mentioned John the Baptist, did not recognize Jesus as the messiah (Contra Celsum, I, 47).

to be continued

Since: Feb 09

Location hidden

#22329 Nov 16, 2013
continued

(6) The famous historian Gibbon claims the passage is a forgery as do many theologians.(7) The passage interrupts the narrative. Immediately before it Josephus tells of a rising of the Jews due to bitter feeling at the conduct of Pilate, and its bloody suppression by the ruling power. The words immediately following the passage are: "Also about this time another misfortune befell the Jews" and we are told of the expulsion of the Jews from Rome by Tiberius on account of the conduct of some of their compatriots. What is the connection between the reference to Jesus and these two narratives? That there must be some connection if Josephus wrote the passage about Jesus goes without saying in view of the character of the writer. Josephus was always careful to have a logical connection between his statements and from a rational standpoint there is no occasion whatever to put the passage about Jesus in the connection in which we find it.(8) The language of this passage is quite Christian and most of the passage is blaphemous from the Jewish perspective.(9) Josephus nowhere else mentioned the word Christ in any of his works, except in reference to James, Jesus' brother (Antiquities, Book 20, Chp. 9,1).(10) And lastly, the Arabic translation of the text, which many consider more accurate, is: "At this time there was a wise man who was called Jesus. And his conduct was good, and (He) was known to be virtuous. And many people from among the Jews and the other nations became his disciples. Pilate condemned Him to be crucified and to die. And those who had become his disciples did not abandon his discipleship. They reported that He had appeared to them three days after his crucifixion and that He was alive; accordingly, He was perhaps the Messiah concerning whom the prophets have recounted wonders." The texts are markedly different in that:(1) The 1st says he was the Christ, while the Arabic text says perhaps he was.(2) The 1st says he appeared to them the 3rd day; the 2nd say, they reported that he had appeared.(3) The 1st says he was dispensing truth with pleasure; the 2nd says nothing about dispensing truth.(4) The 2nd account never implies that he was anything other than a man.(5) And finally,the 2nd account says his conduct was good, while the 1st says he was a "doer of wonderful works," which could be interpreted as miracles.

Since: Feb 09

Location hidden

#22330 Nov 16, 2013
A second major historian whom apologists often quote to justify their belief in an historical Jesus is the Roman Seutonius (77-140 A.D.) who said, "Since the Jews constantly made disturbances at the instigation of Chrestus, he (the emperor, Claudius) expelled them from Rome" (The Life of Claudius, Sec. 25.4). This couldn't refer to Jesus either because (1) The name in the text is not "Christus" but "Chrestus," which by no means is the usualdesignation of Jesus. It was a common name, especially among Roman freedman. Hence, the whole passage may have nothing whatever to do with Christianity.(2) Surely no one will contend that Christ was inciting riots at Rome 15 years after he was supposedly crucified at Jerusalem. And why would Jews be led by Jesus to begin with?(3) This passage contains no evidence for the historicity of Jesus, even if we substitute "Christus" for "Chrestus." Christus is merely the Greek-Latin translation of messiah and the phrase "at the instigation of Christus" could refer to the Messiah generally, and not at all necessarily to the particular messiah, Jesus, as an historical figure.(4) "Chrestus" was not only a familiar personal name, it was also a name ofthe Egyptian Serapis or Osiris, who had a large following at Rome, especially among the common people. Hence "Christians" may be either the followers of a man named Chrestus, or of Serapis. Historians know what evil repute the Egyptian people, which consisted mainly of Alexandrian elements, had at Rome. While other foreign cults that had been introduced into Rome enjoyed the utmost toleration, the cult of Serapis and Isis was exposed repeatedly to persecution. The lax morality associated with their worship of the Egyptian gods and the fanaticism of their worshippers repelled the Romans, and excited the suspicion that their cults might be directed against the State.(5) Vopiscus said, "Those who worship Serapis and the Chrestians,.... They are a turbulent, inflated, lawless body of men." Is it not possible that the reference to Chrestus and the Chrestians has been too hastily applied to Christus and Christians? The "Chrestians," who were detested by the people for their crimes,..., are not Christians at all, but followers of Chrestus, the scum of Egypt, the apaches of Rome, a people on whom Nero could very easily cast the suspicion of having set fire to Rome.

Since: Feb 09

Location hidden

#22331 Nov 16, 2013
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
You bring a whole new meaning to down under...
Hey AK, what say you (with documentation)?
I'd love to hear!
Liar, you HATE documentation unless it helps with your smoke and mirrors.

Pliny the Younger. In his correspondence with the Emperor, Trajan (around 113 A.D.) which is concerned with the question of how Pliny, as Proconsul of the province of Bithynia in Asia Minor (modern Turkey), was to treat the Christians, Pliny said, "I have laid down this rule in dealing with those who were brought before me for being Christians. I asked whether they were Christians; if they confessed, I asked them a second and a third time, threatening them with punishment; if they persevered, I ordered them to be executed.... They assured me that their only crime or error was this, that they were wont to come together on a certain day before it was light, and to sing in turn, among themselves, a hymn to Christ, as to a god, and to bind themselves by an oath--not to do anything that was wicked, that they would commit no theft, robbery, or adultery, nor break their word, nor deny that anything had been entrusted to them when called upon to restore it.... I therefore deemed it the more necessary to extract the truth by torture from two slave women whom they call deaconesses. But I found it was nothing but a bad and excessive superstition.... the sacred rites which had been allowed to lapse (by them) are being performed again, and flesh of sacrificed victims is on sale everywhere, though up till recently scarcely anyone could be found to buy it." Why apologists quote this passage is hard to understand:

(1) It proves nothing in regard to the existence of Jesus, but only affirms the existence of Christians.
(2) If the passage is referring to Christians, then it is also saying Christians sold the flesh of their sacrificial victims.
(3) Roman laws accorded religious liberty to all. Before Constantine there was not a single law opposed to freedom of thought.
(4) Trajan was one of the most tolerant of Roman emperors.
(5) Pliny is universally conceded to have been one of the most humane of men. That Pliny would have tortured two women is highly unlikely. The person and character of women in Pagan Rome were held in high esteem.
(6) The letter implies Bithynia had a large Christian population which is improbable at that early date.
(7) The passage implies Trajan was not acquainted with Christian beliefs and customs even though Christians were quite prominent in his capital.
(8) For Christians to be found in so remote a province as Bithynia before acquiring notoriety in Rome is unlikely.
(9) Pliny says they sing a hymn to Christ as to God which Christians in Pliny's time would consider blasphemous since Jesus was no more than a man to them. His divinity was not established until 325 A.D.
(10) This letter is found in only one ancient copy of Pliny.
(11) The German literati, the most learned, say the epistle is not genuine.
(12) The genuineness of this correspondence of Pliny and Trajan is by no means certain. The tendency of the letters to put the Christians in as favorable a light as possible is too obvious not to excite some suspicion. For these and other reasons the correspondence was declared by experts to be spurious even at the time of its first publication in the 16th century.
(13) The undeniable fact is that some of the first Christians were among the greatest forgers who ever lived. This letter was first quoted by Tertullian and the age immediately preceding him was known for fraudulent writings. Tertullian and Eusebius, the people in favor of the passage's genuineness, were by no means the most reliable sources.

Since: Feb 09

Location hidden

#22332 Nov 16, 2013
The undeniable fact is that some of the first Christians were among the greatest forgers who ever lived.
obedientgirl85

Rooty Hill, Australia

#22333 Nov 16, 2013
Reverend Alan wrote:
<quoted text>
Chapter and verse please.
1 COR. 7:36 American Standard Version, ("But if a man thinketh that he behaveth himself unseemly toward his virgin daughter...and if need so requireth, let him do what he will; he sinneth not; let them marry"--(American Standard Version)
Here God tells us that if a man wants to MOLEST his virgin daughter doing so is NOT a sin but he should marry her before he molests her.
American Standard Version
American Standard Version
American Standard Version
American Standard Version
American Standard Version
American Standard Version
American Standard Version
American Standard Version
American Standard Version
American Standard Version
American Standard Version
American Standard Version
American Standard Version
It is not a sin because it is a father's right to use his daughter! It's Gods word!

“Busting Kimare's”

Since: Feb 13

Clitty

#22334 Nov 16, 2013
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
Miss me Blondie?
Had a wonderful evening with my wife. Bruce Willis and Ann Margret on a romantic date.
Smirk.
You mean the crack of Bruce's ass. Smirk.

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#22335 Nov 16, 2013
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
You are an idiot spouting ignorance.
The Bible is not the only evidence that Jesus existed. You only descend from that ignorance.
Then Jesus didn't exist.

NEXT

“It's Time. . .”

Since: Jun 13

New Holland

#22336 Nov 16, 2013
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
Miss me Blondie?
Had a wonderful evening with my wife. Bruce Willis and Ann Margret on a romantic date.
Smirk.
You prove my point. I should send old Sandy a condolence card.

“... truth will out.”

Since: May 08

Stratford, Connecticut.

#22338 Nov 16, 2013
Reverend Alan wrote:
<quoted text>
Actually the Klingon star ships are warships or war birds as they are called. The "IKS Bortas," a Vor'cha-class war bird is still in active duty.
The USS Enterprise however was a ship of exploration.
The NCC-1701A was officially classified a heavy cruiser although Klingons referred to the Enterprise as a battle cruiser.

http://en.memory-alpha.org/wiki/Heavy_cruiser

Or is Santa so busy before the holidays that he's having problems with his "facts"?

Since: Jun 13

Anchorage, AK

#22339 Nov 16, 2013
Pock Suppet wrote:
Other than the bible, there is no corroborating evidence whatever that Jesus even existed. Of what does appear in the bible attributed to Jesus, nothing at all is written at the time he is supposed to have lived. The earliest gospels are dated to at least 60 years after the alleged crucifixion.
Then there is the problem that the character and life of Jesus bears an overwhelming and extraordinary resemblance to a number of other entities drawn from contemporaneous myths and religions of the Middle East region.
This is all too much of a stretch for me, I'm afraid.
Until someone can come up with credible evidence to the contrary, Jesus will remain a fictional character, and a fictional character, by definition, cannot be divine.
Before you take this explanation personally, I have no problem with your believing something which I do not.
Interesting post. I'm glad that you have put some thought into this subject of Jesus' divinity.

What I've said is that Christianity, man made Jesus divine, not God.

Having said that, the Bible speaks about the heart. This, heart exists with every human and the Bible is not necessary to know and experience the heart.

What others believe does not upset me until they insist that it has to be their way.

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.

Gay/Lesbian Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News 'Free Kim Davis': This is just what gay rights ... (Sep '15) 11 min who cares 22,561
News Thousands of people march during rally at Bosto... 11 min WasteWater 2,200
News Colo. gay discrimination alleged over wedding cake (Jun '13) 18 min lides 43,082
News What would Jesus say about same-sex marriage? (Jul '15) 53 min crucifiedguy 4,744
News Kentucky Has a Gay Senate Candidate - Does Anyb... 1 hr Truffles5450 20
News Is Same-Sex Attraction a Sin? 6 hr Sorry Hill 54
News Doritos makes rainbow chips in support of gay r... (Sep '15) 7 hr guest 534
More from around the web