Homosexuality and the Bible

Homosexuality and the Bible

There are 35949 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

#22505 Nov 19, 2013
Stan wrote:
<quoted text>Your sick insults and projects don't hide the fact that you can make no case for your horrible hate based cause.
Face reality, the Bible forever condemns all homosexual behavior, repeatedly, and in the plainest of terms:
Leviticus 18:22 - You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination.
Leviticus 20:13 - If there is a man who lies with a male as those who lie with a woman, both of them have committed a detestable act; they shall surely be put to death. Their bloodguiltiness is upon them.

There is no logical case against this reality.
#2085
Note that the mechanical translation uses "abhorrence" and is translated "abomination." Look up the definition of "abhorrence." Now, given the two translations how is it that you interpret 18:22 to say homosexuality is a sin? Do not, not answer this question. If you have any honor, you will explain your interpretation.

Legitimate translation: Leviticus 20:25,26.

and·with
male not you-shall-lie-down beds-of woman abhorrence she

and·you(p)-cseparate between
the·beast the·clean to·the·unclean and·between
the·flyer

the·unclean to·the·clean and·not
you(p)-shall-make-abominable »
souls-of·you(p) in·the·beast

and·in·the·flyer and·in·anything which she-is-moving the·ground which
I-cseparated for·you(p)

and·you(p)-become to·me holy-ones that holy
I
Yahweh and·I-am-cseparating »·you(p)
from
the·peoples to·to-become-of for·me

25
Ye shall therefore put
difference between clean
beasts and unclean, and
between unclean fowls and
clean: and ye shall not make
your souls abominable by
beast, or by fowl, or by any
manner of living thing that
creepeth on the ground,
which I have separated
from you as unclean.

26
And ye shall be holy
unto me: for I the LORD
[am] holy, and have severed
you from [other] people,
that ye should be mine.

Lacon, I give you Leviticus 20:25,26 for scriptures definition of abomination.

Again, no reference to sin.

Do you not know how to interpret scripture?

Tell me, teach me how to read scripture!

Since: Jun 13

Anchorage, AK

#22506 Nov 19, 2013
Stan wrote:
<quoted text>Your sick insults and projects don't hide the fact that you can make no case for your horrible hate based cause.
Face reality, the Bible forever condemns all homosexual behavior, repeatedly, and in the plainest of terms:

There is no logical case against this reality.
#2177
"It is obvious that the word as a medium of revelation, the "Word of God," is not a word of information about otherwise hidden truth. If it were this, if revelation were information, no ''transparency" of language would be needed. Ordinary language, transmitting no "sound" of ultimacy, could give information about "divine matters." Such information would be of cognitive and perhaps of ethical interest, but it would lack all the characteristics, of revelation. It would not have the power of grasping, shaking, and transforming, the power which is attributed to the "Word of God."

"If the word as a medium of revelation is not information, it cannot be spoken apart from revelatory events in nature, history, and man. The word is not a medium of revelation in addition to the other mediums; it is a necessary element in all forms of revelation. Since man is man through the power of the word, nothing really human can be so without the word, whether it be spoken or silent. When the prophets spoke, they spoke about the "great deeds of God," the revelatory events in the history of Israel. When the apostles spoke, they spoke about the one great deed of God, The revelatory event which is called Jesus, the Christ. When the priests and seers and mystics in paganism gave holy oracles and created sacred writings, they were giving interpretations of a Spiritual reality which they had entered after having left ordinary reality. Being procedes speaking, and the revelatory reality precedes and determines the revelatory word. A collection of assumed divine revelations concerning "faith and morals" without a revelatory event which they interpret is a lawbook with divine authorization, but it is not the Word of God, and it has no revelatory power. Neither the Ten Commandments nor the great commandment is revelatory if separated from the divine covenant with Israel or from the presence of the Kingdom of God in the covenant with Israel or from the presence of the Kingdom of God in the Christ. These commandments were meant and should be taken as interpretations of the new reality, not as orders directed against the old reality. They are descriptions and not laws. The same is true of the doctrines. They are not revealed doctrines, but there are revelatory events and situations which can be described in doctrinal terms. Ecclesiastical doctrines are meaningless if separated from the revelatory situation out of which they have grown. The "Word of God" contains neither revealed commandments nor revealed doctrines; it accompanies and interprets revelatory situations."
Systematic Theology, Paul Tillich, Vol. I, pp. 124, 125.

Since: Jun 13

Anchorage, AK

#22507 Nov 19, 2013
Stan wrote:
<quoted text>Your sick insults and projects don't hide the fact that you can make no case for your horrible hate based cause.
Face reality, the Bible forever condemns all homosexual behavior, repeatedly, and in the plainest of terms:

There is no logical case against this reality.
#2178
“The phrase “inner word” is unfortunate. Words are means of communication. The “inner word” would be a kind of self-communication, a monologue of the soul with itself. But “inner word” is used in order to describe the speaking of God in the depth of the individual soul. Something is said to the soul, but it is said neither in spoken nor in silent words. It is not said in words at all. It is a movement of the soul in itself. The “inner word” is an expression of the negation of the word as a medium of revelation. A word is spoken to someone; the “inner word” is the awareness of what is already present and does not need to be said. The same is true of the phrase “inner revelation.” An inner revelation must reveal something which is not yet a part of the inner man. Otherwise it would not be revelation but recollection; something potentially present would become actual and conscious. This, in fact, is the position of mystics, idealists and spiritualists, whether they notice it or not. But man in the state of existential separation cannot attain the message of the New Being by recollection. It must come to him, it must be said to him; it is a matter of revelation. This criticism of the doctrine of the inner word is historically confirmed by the easy transition from spiritualism to rationalism. The inner word was more and more identified with the logical and ethical norms which constitute the rational structure of mind and reality. The voice of revelation was replaced by the voice of our moral conscience, reminding us of what we essentially know. Against the doctrine of the word as a medium of revelation, symbolically the doctrine of the Word of God.” Ibid., pp. 126.

"..., the term Word is applied to the document of the final revelation and its special preparation, namely, the Bible. But if the Bible is called the Word of God, theological confusion is almost unavoidable. Such consequences as the dictation theory of inspiration, dishonesty in dealing with the biblical text, a "monophysitic" dogma of the infallibility of a book, etc., follow from such an identification. The Bible is the Word of God in two senses. It is the document of the final revelation; and it participates in the final revelation of which it is the document. Probably nothing has contributed more to the misinterpretation of the biblical doctrine of the Word than the identification of the Word with the Bible." Systematic Theology, Paul Tillich, Vol. I, pp. 158,159.

Since: Jun 13

Anchorage, AK

#22508 Nov 19, 2013
Stan wrote:
<quoted text>Your sick insults and projects don't hide the fact that you can make no case for your horrible hate based cause.
Face reality, the Bible forever condemns all homosexual behavior, repeatedly, and in the plainest of terms:

There is no logical case against this reality.
#2179
Ultimately, the Word of God, is a revelatory process for man. That is to say that as one reads the Bible one's reading is God speaking to you about the human condition. As with my mention of my first experience of reading the Bible; I read from John 1 and with each verse that there was a reference I read that reference and with more references that came with the reference I began to see what it was that the original verse meant. Not what I percieve from a literal reading. This is essential so as not to put your personal twist on God's Word. Again, the Word of God is a revelatory process.
----------
Christianity is not a moralistic religion. Actually, Christianity is not a religion. Religion is Lutherenism, Catholcism, etc., man-made institutions. Christianity is apart of the final revelation, of the Logos, the doctrine of the Word of God. And as long as the Word of God is a revelatory process, no words of the Bible can be considered the Word of God. It is what the words say to you as verified by verses of the Bible that begin this revelatory process of God revealing the Word of God to us. To read the Bible literally is to miss this revelatory process.

Since: Jun 13

Anchorage, AK

#22509 Nov 19, 2013
Stan wrote:
<quoted text>Your sick insults and projects don't hide the fact that you can make no case for your horrible hate based cause.
Face reality, the Bible forever condemns all homosexual behavior, repeatedly, and in the plainest of terms:

There is no logical case against this reality.
|#2457
"15 8. now, we know that the Law is good if it is taken as a law: This is a reflection of a thought that Paul expresses emphatically elsewhere (e.g., 1 Cor 15:56), i.e., that the Mosaic Law, even when it was in force, did not give the interior spiritual power necessary to accomplish what it prescribed. This power came only from Christ. Nevertheless, the Law was a divine ordinance designed to prepare for the coming of Christ (Gal 3:23-24), and in this sense it was "holy" and "spiritual" (Rom 7:12, 14). 9-10. Paul considers the Law in its penal aspect, as threatening and punishing sinners. Under this aspect it was instituted for the unjust, not for the just. Catalogues of vices are found elsewhere in the Pastorals (6:4-5; 2 Tm 3:2-5); Ti 3:3). To a certain extent these lists reflect catalogues in contemporary literature (-> Pauline Theology, 79:161). sound doctrine: This and cognate phrases are characteristic of the Pastorals: "sound doctrine" (2 Tm 4:3; Ti 1:9; 2:1); "sound words" (1 Tm 6:3; 2 Tm 1:13); "to be sound in the faith" (Tm 1:13; 2:2); "sound speech" (Ti 2:8). The terminology is found frequently in contemporary authors to describe a teaching that is wise, is prudent, and is compatible with reason. Paul means to emphasize that the Christian teaching, while being transcendent, also accords with intellectual and moral soundness (Phil 4:8; Rom. 12:1).

16 11. All that Paul has just said derives from the gospel entrusted to
him. the gospel of the glory of the blessed God: A message concerned with the manifestation of God himself ("glory" in the biblical sense ) that took place in the incarnation and in our participation in it (Jn 1:14ff.; 2 Cor 4:4, "the gospel of the glory of Christ who is the image of God"; 2 Cor 4:6; Col 1:27). God is called "blessed" again in 6:15. Beatitude belongs properly to God by reason of his perfect, eternal, and unchangeable nature. God allows man to participate in this beatitude, and man's hope of attaining this gift is called a "blessed hope" in Ti 2:13." JBC [57:15:8, 9-10;16:11], ed., 1968.

NAB, ed., 1970.
10 fornicators, sexual perverts, kidnappers, liars, perjurers, and those who in other ways flout the sound teaching

1, 8-11: Those responsible for the empty surmises which are to be suppressed by Timothy do not present the Old Testament from the Christian viewpoint. The Christian values the Old Testament not as a system of law, but as the first stage in God's revelation of his saving plan, which is brought to fulfillment in the good news of salvation through faith in Jesus Christ. NAB, ed., 1970, p. 1320.

What is important in these passages is that OT law's good was not understood and the NT Great Commandment establishes the saving plan. OT law prepares for Christ. Christians don't see the OT as a system of laws. It stands to reason the the catalog of vices here represent an estrangement from God. All the vices represent the same notion. All but, you guessed it, this concept of homosexuality. Homosexuality does not represent the symbolism associated with adultery (an issue of property) or, fornication (temple sex) or, lying etc. All told, this list is about idolatry. If you missed this point begin reading again from Genesis to ascertain the main theme of the Bible.

Where modern translations use homosexuality as a vice, let me clarify what the Bible really says about homosexuality. Next post:
Rainbow Kid

Alpharetta, GA

#22510 Nov 19, 2013
KiMare wrote:
The Bible clearly and consistently speaks of marriage between a man and woman.
It also 'speaks' of Solomon who was married to 700 wives and 300 lesbians
.
1000 women all married to each other is the biggest most colossal gay marriage in recorded history
.
Solomon would need 25 Greyhound Buses just to carry his 1000 wives d!ldo shopping at Victoria's Secret
.
So you betta get busy and reenact Solomon's gay marriage so you don't get tossed in 'The Lake' now; ya' hear?
.
Stop postin' and start pokin'

Since: Jun 13

Anchorage, AK

#22511 Nov 20, 2013
Stan wrote:
<quoted text>Your sick insults and projects don't hide the fact that you can make no case for your horrible hate based cause.
Face reality, the Bible forever condemns all homosexual behavior, repeatedly, and in the plainest of terms:

I Corinthians 6:9(NIV)- Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.

There is no logical case against this reality.
9. Know ye not that the
unrighteous shall not inherit
the kingdom of God? Be not
deceived: neither fornicators,
nor idolaters, nor adulterers,
nor effeminate, nor abusers of
themselves with mankind,

NOT-BESIDES Soft-ones NOT-BESIDES sodomites NOT-BESIDES thieves NOT-BESIDES MORE-HAVers NOT-BESIDES DRUNKards NOT say-SPEARers NOT-BESIDES SNATCHers KINGdom OF-GOD NOT SHALL-BE-tenantING

And now, the English translation.

9. Know ye not that the
unrighteous shall not inherit
the kingdom of God? Be not
deceived: neither fornicators,
nor idolaters, nor adulterers,
nor effeminate, nor abusers of
themselves with mankind, 10 Nor thieves, nor covetous,
nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor
extortioners, shall inherit the
kingdom of God.

Do you agree with the Greek translation?

, I asked you to bring forth your Greek New Testament so we, you and I could discuss the Greek translation. Let me enlighten you as to the Greek (mechanical)translation.

1 Corinthians 6:9,10; OR NOT YE-HAVE-PECEIVED that UN-JUST KINGdom OF NOT SHALL-BE-tenantING NO BE-beING-STRAYED NOT-BESIDES idolators NOT-BESIDES ADULTERers

9. Know ye not that the
unrighteous shall not inherit
the kingdom of God? Be not
deceived: neither fornicators,
nor idolaters, nor adulterers,
nor effeminate, nor abusers of
themselves with mankind,

NOT-BESIDES Soft-ones NOT-BESIDES sodomites NOT-BESIDES thieves NOT-BESIDES MORE-HAVers NOT-BESIDES DRUNKards NOT say-SPEARers NOT-BESIDES SNATCHers KINGdom OF-GOD NOT SHALL-BE-tenantING

And now, the English translation.

#2508
9. Know ye not that the
unrighteous shall not inher

9. Know ye not that the
unrighteous shall not inherit
the kingdom of God? Be not
deceived: neither fornicators,
nor idolaters, nor adulterers,
nor effeminate, nor abusers of
themselves with mankind, 10 Nor thieves, nor covetous,
nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor
extortioners, shall inherit the
kingdom of God.

I asked you to bring forth your Greek New Testament so we, you and I could discuss the Greek translation. Let me enlighten you as to the Greek (mechanical)translation.

1 Corinthians 6:9,10; OR NOT YE-HAVE-PECEIVED that UN-JUST KINGdom OF NOT SHALL-BE-tenantING NO BE-beING-STRAYED NOT-BESIDES idolators NOT-BESIDES ADULTERers
!!br0ken!!

Since: Jun 13

Anchorage, AK

#22512 Nov 20, 2013
Stan wrote:
<quoted text>Your sick insults and projects don't hide the fact that you can make no case for your horrible hate based cause.
Face reality, the Bible forever condemns all homosexual behavior, repeatedly, and in the plainest of terms:

Romans 1:26-27 - For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural, and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error.

There is no logical case against this reality.
#2519
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.

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.

Cont.->

Since: Jun 13

Anchorage, AK

#22513 Nov 20, 2013
Stan wrote:
<quoted text>Your sick insults and projects don't hide the fact that you can make no case for your horrible hate based cause.
Face reality, the Bible forever condemns all homosexual behavior, repeatedly, and in the plainest of terms:

Romans 1:26-27 - For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural, and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error.

There is no logical case against this reality.
Cont.:

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.
32Leviticus 18:22 - You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination.
Leviticus 20:13 - If there is a man who lies with a male as those who lie with a woman, both of them have committed a detestable act; they shall surely be put to death. Their bloodguiltiness is upon them.
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.

Since: Jun 13

Anchorage, AK

#22514 Nov 20, 2013
Stan wrote:
<quoted text>Your sick insults and projects don't hide the fact that you can make no case for your horrible hate based cause.
Face reality, the Bible forever condemns all homosexual behavior, repeatedly, and in the plainest of terms:

There is no logical case against this reality.
I Timothy 1:8-11
"15 8. now, we know that the Law is good if it is taken as a law: This is a reflection of a thought that Paul expresses emphatically elsewhere (e.g., 1 Cor 15:56), i.e., that the Mosaic Law, even when it was in force, did not give the interior spiritual power necessary to accomplish what it prescribed. This power came only from Christ. Nevertheless, the Law was a divine ordinance designed to prepare for the coming of Christ (Gal 3:23-24), and in this sense it was "holy" and "spiritual" (Rom 7:12, 14). 9-10. Paul considers the Law in its penal aspect, as threatening and punishing sinners. Under this aspect it was instituted for the unjust, not for the just. Catalogues of vices are found elsewhere in the Pastorals (6:4-5; 2 Tm 3:2-5); Ti 3:3). To a certain extent these lists reflect catalogues in contemporary literature (-> Pauline Theology, 79:161). sound doctrine: This and cognate phrases are characteristic of the Pastorals: "sound doctrine" (2 Tm 4:3; Ti 1:9; 2:1); "sound words" (1 Tm 6:3; 2 Tm 1:13); "to be sound in the faith" (Tm 1:13; 2:2); "sound speech" (Ti 2:8). The terminology is found frequently in contemporary authors to describe a teaching that is wise, is prudent, and is compatible with reason. Paul means to emphasize that the Christian teaching, while being transcendent, also accords with intellectual and moral soundness (Phil 4:8; Rom. 12:1).

16 11. All that Paul has just said derives from the gospel entrusted to him. the gospel of the glory of the blessed God: A message concerned with the manifestation of God himself ("glory" in the biblical sense ) that took place in the incarnation and in our participation in it (Jn 1:14ff.; 2 Cor 4:4, "the gospel of the glory of Christ who is the image of God"; 2 Cor 4:6; Col 1:27). God is called "blessed" again in 6:15. Beatitude belongs properly to God by reason of his perfect, eternal, and unchangeable nature. God allows man to participate in this beatitude, and man's hope of attaining this gift is called a "blessed hope" in Ti 2:13." JBC [57:15:8, 9-10;16:11], ed., 1968.

NAB, ed., 1970.
10 fornicators, sexual perverts, kidnappers, liars, perjurers, and those who in other ways flout the sound teaching

1, 8-11: Those responsible for the empty surmises which are to be suppressed by Timothy do not present the Old Testament from the Christian viewpoint. The Christian values the Old Testament not as a system of law, but as the firs Timothy t stage in God's revelation of his saving plan, which is brought to fulfillment in the good news of salvation through faith in Jesus Christ. NAB, ed., 1970, p. 1320.

What is important in these passages is that OT law's good was not understood and the NT Great Commandment establishes the saving plan. OT law prepares for Christ. Christians don't see the OT as a system of laws. It stands to reason the the catalog of vices here represent an estrangement from God. All the vices represent the same notion. All but, you guessed it, this concept of homosexuality. Homosexuality does not represent the symbolism associated with adultery (an issue of property) or, fornication (temple sex) or, lying etc. All told, this list is about idolatry. If you missed this point begin reading again from Genesis to ascertain the main theme of the Bible. Where modern translations use homosexuality as a vice, let me clarify what the Bible really says about homosexuality.

Since: Jun 13

Anchorage, AK

#22515 Nov 20, 2013
Stan wrote:
<quoted text>Your sick insults and projects don't hide the fact that you can make no case for your horrible hate based cause.
Face reality, the Bible forever condemns all homosexual behavior, repeatedly, and in the plainest of terms:

Jude 1:6-7 (NASB)- And angels who did not keep their own domain, but abandoned their proper abode, He has kept in eternal bonds under darkness for the judgment of the great day, just as Sodom and Gomorrah and the cities around them, since they in the same way as these indulged in gross immorality and went after strange flesh, are exhibited as an example in undergoing the punishment of eternal fire.
There is no logical case against this reality.
Jude 7: "10 (A) God's Past Judgments on the Wicked (5-7). Three OT examples are briefly cited. 5. destroyed those who did not believe: Cf. Nm 14:26-35. Paul draws more detailed morals from the account of Israel in the desert: 1 Cor 10:1-11 (cf. Also Heb 3:7-4:11; Ps 94:8-11). 6. The second example probably refers to the “sons of God” who took to wife the daughters of men (Gn 6:1-4). This seems implied in v. 7, since the Sodomites sinned “ina similar manner” to the angels. Furthermore, Enoch (quoted in vv. 14-15) gives great emphasis to this sin of the angels (or heavenly “Watchers”) and to its punishment, in terms very similar to those used here by Jude (cf. Enoch 6-16; esp. 10:4-6, 11,13; 12:4; 15:3;19:1). Cf. Also 2 Pt 2:4-6, where the fall of the angels occurs along with that of the Sodomites; and also T. Naphtali 3:4-5. The imprisoned angels awaiting judgment in 2 Pt and Jude are identified by some with the “spirits in prison” of 1 Pt 3:19 (see comment). 7. Sodom and Gomorrah: Cf. Gn 19:4-25. These cities are frequently cited as prime examples of sin and its punishment in the OT Prophets and in the Apocrypha. Cf. Also Mt 10:15 par.;11:24; Lk17:29; 2Pt 2:6. surrounding cities: Admah and Zeboiim (Dt 29:22; cf. Hos 11:8). in a similar manner to them: Probably refers to the sinful angels of v. 6. going off after an alien flesh: As the angels sought out creatures of another order of being (women), so the Sodomites sought out angels (Gen 19:5; cf. T. Asher 7:1). serve as an example: The Dead Sea area, redolent of fire and brimstone, was a constant reminder of the punishment of these buried cities. In Jewish tradition the fire that fell upon them continues to burn on as the fire of hell (cf. F. Lang, ThWNT 6, 945f.)." JBC[60:10]

Where in the above commentary exert do you see the word homosexual? You see Sodomites but then the commentary goes on to define sodomite as:

Since: Aug 09

Location hidden

#22516 Nov 20, 2013
Lucifer wrote:
<quoted text>let me ask you this; how long have you been a "reverend" spewing this propaganda and lies about the afterlife and also "gods will"? I'm just a wee bit concernicus that your on a website that is very sexually explicit (especially with minors) and yet your preaching about god?? I smell a pedophile, you sir should go away and f*ck off and once you are a way should f*ck off again and again till you get back here then f*ck off some more
LOL!!!... Interesting reaction on your part!

I don't know where or on which Topix Forum thread you are reading my posts, as they are cross-referenced to other threads. However, I am posting, on this thread, from the Episcopal Church Forum on Topix from the thread labeled "Homosexuality and the Bible." This particular Internet-blog thread is now over 20,000 posted comments and opinions long. And yes, I am certain, too, that it is regularly visited and read by people of all ages and persuasions. That is the nature of the Topix Blog site.

Regarding thread topics, my posts are very generally on topic. Not always. But, generally so.

I am an ordained priest; born and raised Episcopalian and a member in good standing, and no, I am neither a pedophile nor am I homosexual.

As for being a disciple of Jesus Christ; that I am.

Rev. Ken

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#22517 Nov 20, 2013
RevKen wrote:
<quoted text>
On the contrary!
You regularly and repeatedly interpret the Bible.
Your interpretations of what is written and what is NOT written in Matthew 19 are an example that everyone who reads these posts is already aware.
You regularly try to justify your concepts of reality by those same interpretations. But, your justifications leave something to be desired, don't they?! Yes. They do.
You have just done this, again, in your post above, even while denying it, saying, "The Bible clearly and consistently speaks of marriage between a man and a woman."
Well then, just what is it that the Bible clearly and consistently does NOT speak of in terms of same-sex marriage? I ask this very simple question because, regardless of your limited understanding of what a marriage can be, that which is more than what you had previously understood to be is still very much a possibility - even a reality that you cannot yet bring yourself to believe.
However, take faith. Jesus Christ hasn't taken the opportunity to teach you everything He knows, just yet.
You live in the forest, with a Giant Sequoia growing through your eye, Kim. But, don't worry. The Master Lumberjack with the Big Chainsaw is working His Way toward you.
Rev. Ken
Let me get this straight...

I'm wrong about what the Bible repeats and exemplifies, but you are right that what it condemns is okay?

You need help rev.

Smile.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#22518 Nov 20, 2013
akopen wrote:
<quoted text>
Jude 7: "10 (A) God's Past Judgments on the Wicked (5-7). Three OT examples are briefly cited. 5. destroyed those who did not believe: Cf. Nm 14:26-35. Paul draws more detailed morals from the account of Israel in the desert: 1 Cor 10:1-11 (cf. Also Heb 3:7-4:11; Ps 94:8-11). 6. The second example probably refers to the “sons of God” who took to wife the daughters of men (Gn 6:1-4). This seems implied in v. 7, since the Sodomites sinned “ina similar manner” to the angels. Furthermore, Enoch (quoted in vv. 14-15) gives great emphasis to this sin of the angels (or heavenly “Watchers”) and to its punishment, in terms very similar to those used here by Jude (cf. Enoch 6-16; esp. 10:4-6, 11,13; 12:4; 15:3;19:1). Cf. Also 2 Pt 2:4-6, where the fall of the angels occurs along with that of the Sodomites; and also T. Naphtali 3:4-5. The imprisoned angels awaiting judgment in 2 Pt and Jude are identified by some with the “spirits in prison” of 1 Pt 3:19 (see comment). 7. Sodom and Gomorrah: Cf. Gn 19:4-25. These cities are frequently cited as prime examples of sin and its punishment in the OT Prophets and in the Apocrypha. Cf. Also Mt 10:15 par.;11:24; Lk17:29; 2Pt 2:6. surrounding cities: Admah and Zeboiim (Dt 29:22; cf. Hos 11:8). in a similar manner to them: Probably refers to the sinful angels of v. 6. going off after an alien flesh: As the angels sought out creatures of another order of being (women), so the Sodomites sought out angels (Gen 19:5; cf. T. Asher 7:1). serve as an example: The Dead Sea area, redolent of fire and brimstone, was a constant reminder of the punishment of these buried cities. In Jewish tradition the fire that fell upon them continues to burn on as the fire of hell (cf. F. Lang, ThWNT 6, 945f.)." JBC[60:10]
Where in the above commentary exert do you see the word homosexual? You see Sodomites but then the commentary goes on to define sodomite as:
Wow AK, that is impressive!

However, anal sex is still inherently harmful, unhealthy and demeaning.

Kind of a big problem with your theology, don't you think???

Smirk.
Rainbow Kid

Alpharetta, GA

#22519 Nov 20, 2013
KiMare wrote:
However, anal sex is still inherently harmful, unhealthy and demeaning.Smirk.
Perhaps you have swollen hemhorroidal tissue
.
If so; you're too old to rock
.
You'll have to settle for the Metamucil Mambo in your Hoveround®
obedientgirl85

Rooty Hill, Australia

#22520 Nov 20, 2013
Pock Suppet wrote:
Nice post obedientgirl, although I think you actually meant to say...
"The bible may raise issues with homosexuality but you will all find it does **NOT** 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)
Your name and the content of your posts would also seem to suggest that you are entirely ready and willing to sexually subject yourself to your father/stepfather?
Would you like to explore that further? Because I certainly would.
.
<quoted text>
That is what I meant... what a crucial typo =/

And yes I would.

Since: Aug 09

Location hidden

#22521 Nov 20, 2013
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
Let me get this straight...
I'm wrong about what the Bible repeats and exemplifies, but you are right that what it condemns is okay?
You need help rev.
Smile.
LOL!!!.... Goofy logic and mischaracterization on your part.
The Bible doesn't DO anything, Kim.

What you believe to be getting straight about YOUR opinions and interpretations is, shall we say,... less than perfect.

You like to fill in the blanks. But, only YOUR way. And then, of course, there are the many blanks that Jesus has filled in since the time that canonical scripture was set forth; not to mention those parts of the puzzle that you and I don't yet understand.

Remember what He is reported to have said:
"All these things that I do, so shall you do and even greater."

Think He was kidding?

Consider the limitations that you readily acknowledge, even brag, about yourself. That is, that you define your comprehension as being constrained by a certain "jackass senility" brought on by mental and emotional, spiritual ossification.

I couldn't agree more.

The viperous teeth you are showing are covered with a foul, scaly something that you can't reach and don't quite know how to brush off.
Time for you to schedule an appointment with the Lord of Cosmic Dentistry.

Also, you might want to schedule that periodontal session to occur BEFORE your upcoming rendezvous with the Master Lumberjack and His Big Chainsaw. Otherwise, He might mistake the few pearly whites that you have left with old, moldy Sequoia bark around what is left of your eye.

Oh, and thanks! I'll take ALL the help I can get.

Just sayin',

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

Since: Jun 13

Anchorage, AK

#22522 Nov 20, 2013
Once again, Lacons still have nothing intelligent to say regarding sound exegesis that does not condemn homosexuality. No comment about one word or phrase let alone a passage in question.

In school one learns the rules to mathematics to be able to do math but Lacon's don't know any rules and still they interpret the Bible. How is it that no rules leads to anything but a personal interpretation?
Stan

Pekin, IL

#22523 Nov 20, 2013
Positively no Bible translation, ancient Bible text, or early Christian writing places in question the Bible's many condemnations of all homosexual behavior.

Since: Aug 09

Location hidden

#22524 Nov 20, 2013
Stan wrote:
Positively no Bible translation, ancient Bible text, or early Christian writing places in question the Bible's many condemnations of all homosexual behavior.
Oh, yes they do! They ALL do! As a matter of fact, every early Christian writing that follows, quotes or is founded upon the Teachings of Jesus Christ take away ALL condemnations of homosexual behavior leading to exclusive, trust and mutual care based, pair-bond same-sex relationships.

They all do, Mr. Manito Manurehead Stan.

They ALL do. Absolutely, positively All bible translations, ancient Bible texts, and early Christian writings that are based upon the Teachings of Jesus Christ place in question any condemnation of homosexual behavior ....

... except reckless promiscuity and overindulgence in physical gratification, both for heterosexuals and homosexuals. And even these behaviors are forgivable if and when individuals temper their behavioral excesses.

They ALL do.

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 Priest Who Wrote Vatican's Anti-Gay Guidelines ... 26 min Dr Reker s Bellhop 3
News Lawmakers forming committee to study LGBT rights 50 min Belles Echoes 22
News Anti-Gay Jehovah's Witness Cartoon Tells Kids T... 1 hr jsmith 2,111
News Colo. gay discrimination alleged over wedding cake (Jun '13) 1 hr here 36,260
News 'Gay sex causes earthquakes' says conservative ... 2 hr wichita-rick 2
News Feds' transgender guidance provokes fierce back... 2 hr californio 1,044
Maybe god is gay! (Dec '09) 3 hr June VanDerMark 10,337
News 'Free Kim Davis': This is just what gay rights ... (Sep '15) 4 hr River Tam 11,908
More from around the web