Homosexuality and the Bible

Homosexuality and the Bible

There are 36053 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: Feb 09

Location hidden

#23927 Jan 5, 2014
KiMare wrote:
Too funny, a bunch of gays can't answer the simple question;
.
Biblicists NEVER answer my question: It concerns the question of whether or not God's face has been seen.

John 1:18 "No man hath seen God at any time;..."
Exodus 33:20, And he said, Thou canst not see my face: for there shall no man see me, and live.
John 6:46 "Not that any man hath seen the Father, save he which is of God, he hath seen the Father."
1 John 4:12 "No man hath seen God at any time. If we love one another, God dwelleth in us, and his love is perfected in us."

Versus

Gen. 32:30 "And Jacob called the name of the place Peniel: for I have seen God face to face, and my life is preserved."
Exod. 33:11 "And the LORD spake unto Moses face to face, as a man speaketh unto his friend."
Num. 14:14 "...that thou LORD art seen face to face,..."
Job 42:5 "I have heard of thee by the hearing of the ear: but now mine eye seeth thee."
Deut. 34:10 "And there arose not a prophet since in Israel like unto Moses, whom the LORD knew face to face,..."
Deut. 5:4 "The LORD talked with you face to face...."

Since: Feb 09

Location hidden

#23928 Jan 5, 2014
akopen wrote:
<quoted text>
According to you.
And we all know Kimare can not be trusted any more than his Bible can be trusted.

Since: Feb 09

Location hidden

#23929 Jan 5, 2014
RevKen wrote:
<quoted text>
Maybe it "is all just words" to you, Rev. Alan.
My "doer?" No. It's just plain old me.
What are you?

This is not about attacking you, this is about a fact finding inner exploration. Do you breath or do you live in a flesh and blood machine that breaths for you? How do you know when you are hungry? Or when you have to go to the bathroom?

One of my cousins had polio and had to live in an iron lung which breathed for her because her flesh and blood machine could not do so because of this polio virus that attacked her body. A machine did the work that her flesh and blood machine could not.

The flesh and blood machine "you" live in breaths for you totally automatically with out any participation from this "you" you believe yourself to be. It tells you when you are hungry, when you have to go to the bathroom and when you need to go to sleep. And "you" take credit for all this aromaticity.

You say, I am hungry, I have to go to the bathroom, I am tired and if shocked, you may say, I am breathing, I am digesting food I am circulating my blood. But this is all automatic and you can't change any of it except by jumping off the top of a tall building.

You are not what you believe yourself to be.

Since: Feb 09

Location hidden

#23931 Jan 5, 2014
RevKen wrote:
<quoted text>
The parable of the Talents is about putting all that you have been given, all that you are and can be into action without becoming a slave to any of it.
What have you been given? What are you? And what can you become?

Speaking of slaves. Aren't you a slave to your flesh and blood machine? When it is hungry you eat. When it says go to the bathroom you go. When it says sleep you hop in bed. When it informs you it needs to release sexual energy you have sex. Why do "you" believe you make all of this happen? That this is all your doing? Are you digesting you food as we type and read or is it all happening with out any conscious participation on your part?

Since: Feb 09

Location hidden

#23932 Jan 5, 2014
akopen wrote:
<quoted text>
Heaven? There is no more a heaven than there is a hell.
Which is exactly what I said, "imaginary heaven".

Since: Feb 09

Location hidden

#23933 Jan 5, 2014
Matt 7:1-2, "Judge not, that ye be not judged. 2For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again.”

Who is this pretend Christian using the Judge-its? No real and true Christian would use them.

“... truth will out.”

Since: May 08

Stratford, Connecticut.

#23934 Jan 5, 2014
Reverend Alan wrote:
... Who is this pretend Christian using the Judge-its? No real and true Christian would use them.
But a "real" Santa Claus would, or are YOU the one pretending?

Since: Aug 09

Location hidden

#23935 Jan 5, 2014
Reverend Alan wrote:
<quoted text>
What are you?
This is not about attacking you, this is about a fact finding inner exploration.

.....

You are not what you believe yourself to be.
I thank my "lucky stars," my God and my parents and my stellar environs that the human body, which I both am and do inhabit, is such a wonderfully integrated organism, including the vast array of symbiotic living entities that assist in its functions and draw their somewhat finite life and lives within and from it, that I don't have to "think" about all of the various electrochemical and nuclear processes that this hosting body simultaneously conducts from moment to moment and day to day. It is a veritable galaxy of conscious and sub-conscious, regenerative life, light and love existing in both organic and inorganic media.

What a joyous action it is, to be able to arise within this galactical wonder on this snowy Sunday morning and write to you, simply by directing my thoughts to be expressed through my fingertips and subsequently to be transmitted to you by waveform and fiber-wire, then to be at least partially recognized through the distributed patterns of light emitting photonic arrays toward the backs of your retinas for reinterpretation via your own, very limited means of prefrontal cortextual comprehension.

May God Bless the Infinitely Wonderful Architect and Engineer and Artistic Musician that created this astounding cacaphony of harmonic processes!

So what if I don't even bother with trying to consciously manage all of it all of the time?
But, of course, I do bathe, get a hair cut, trim my nails and attend to most of its needs, including covering it appropriately for effect and protection. Yet, it is aging, which in itself, does offer some benefits. I have not asked to inhabit the thing forever. Plus, it was a bit prettier in years past.

No. Not necessary. In fact, I have even managed to very competently and subconsciously set up and continuously regenerate entire systems for the purpose of freeing my conscious orb of the more mundane tasks, just so that I can take an occasional moment out to merrily laugh at your inept, impertinent and imprecise impetuosities.

In other words, you neither know me nor do you yet know your own Self. For if you did, you would not have to ask the questions that you do ask.

You say that there are "Schools" that Teach a Way of behavior and knowledge, and which "disciplines" have existed on this wonderful planet for thousands of years. I agree. There are these "Schools." As a priest, I was ordained into one such "School." But, it probably isn't one that you would choose or that might choose you. On the other hand, who am I to judge?

Yet, if such "Schools" do exist, for what purpose do they now exist or have ever existed? If they offer "schooling" then they do so from a discipline and body of knowledge gathered and compounded upon itself to be perpetuated for a certain efficiency. Yet, YOU demean and discredit some forms of discipline and knowledge. So, in your indiscriminate discrimination, after all, it appears that you have no need for any of it.

Why then, don't you simply brush through seven lifetimes and then evaporate into thin air and dissemble into a radiant art form and go elsewhwere to be among those beauteous corsage-bearing, saffron-smelling redundancies who are like yourself, today?

Or, God willing and God forbid, to be among those who have something to teach to you that you do not already know?

Dear Friend (Rev.) Alan,

Please inform..... Just exactly which number (#) of "Top" rung upon Jacob's Ladder did you last step from? And when you took that most recent step, whether or not you managed to record the rung # that you had vacated, did you also manage to discern whether you were climbing with your head going down or descending with your head going up or vice versa?

Rev. Ken
A priest, nameless wandering servant and disciple of the Lord, Christ Jesus.

Since: Aug 09

Location hidden

#23936 Jan 5, 2014
Reverend Alan wrote:
<quoted text>
What are you?
This is not about attacking you, this is about a fact finding inner exploration.

.....

You are not what you believe yourself to be.
I thank my "lucky stars," my God and my parents and my stellar environs that the human body, which I both am and do inhabit, is such a wonderfully integrated organism, including the vast array of symbiotic living entities that assist in its functions and draw their somewhat finite life and lives within and from it, that I don't have to "think" about all of the various electrochemical and nuclear processes that this hosting body simultaneously conducts from moment to moment and day to day. It is a veritable galaxy of conscious and sub-conscious, regenerative life, light and love existing in both organic and inorganic media.

What a joyous action it is, to be able to arise within this galactical wonder on this snowy Sunday morning and write to you, simply by directing my thoughts to be expressed through my fingertips and subsequently to be transmitted to you by waveform and fiber-wire, then to be at least partially recognized through the distributed patterns of light emitting photonic arrays toward the backs of your retinas for reinterpretation via your own, very limited means of prefrontal cortextual comprehension.

May God Bless the Infinitely Wonderful Architect and Engineer and Artistic Musician that created this astounding cacaphony of harmonic processes!

So what if I don't even bother with trying to consciously manage all of it all of the time?
But, of course, I do bathe, get a hair cut, trim my nails and attend to most of its needs, including covering it appropriately for effect and protection. Yet, it is aging, which in itself, does offer some benefits. I have not asked to inhabit the thing forever. Plus, it was a bit prettier in years past.

No. Not necessary. In fact, I have even managed to very competently and subconsciously set up and continuously regenerate entire systems for the purpose of freeing my conscious orb of the more mundane tasks, just so that I can take an occasional moment out to merrily laugh at your inept, impertinent and imprecise impetuosities.

In other words, you neither know me nor do you yet know your own Self. For if you did, you would not have to ask the questions that you do ask.

You say that there are "Schools" that Teach a Way of behavior and knowledge, and which "disciplines" have existed on this wonderful planet for thousands of years. I agree. There are these "Schools." As a priest, I was ordained into one such "School." But, it probably isn't one that you would choose or that might choose you. On the other hand, who am I to judge?

Yet, if such "Schools" do exist, for what purpose do they now exist or have ever existed? If they offer "schooling" then they do so from a discipline and body of knowledge gathered and compounded upon itself to be perpetuated for a certain efficiency. Yet, YOU demean and discredit some forms of discipline and knowledge. So, in your indiscriminate discrimination, after all, it appears that you have no need for any of it.

Why then, don't you simply brush through seven lifetimes and then evaporate into thin air and dissemble into a radiant art form and go elsewhere to be among those beauteous corsage-bearing, saffron-smelling redundancies who are like yourself, today?

Or, God willing and God forbid, to be among those who have something to teach to you that you do not already know?

Dear Friend (Rev.) Alan,

Please inform..... Just exactly which number (#) of "Top" rung upon Jacob's Ladder did you last step from? And when you took that most recent step, whether or not you managed to record the rung # that you had vacated, did you also manage to discern whether you were climbing with your head going down or descending with your head going up or vice versa?

Rev. Ken
A priest, nameless wandering servant and disciple of the Lord, Christ Jesus.
asd

Hawthorne, CA

#23937 Jan 5, 2014
akopen wrote:
<quoted text>
Interesting, asd, Rev. Ken is correct in his statement regarding idolatry. Your reply is also very interesting and if I understand you, the fact that idolatry has infected Christianity seriously won't change, revert back to its original mission. I posted a site that addresses the why homosexuality has become condemned by Christianity. That posting relates to Christianity's idolatry without saying as much.
Well, actually, no, he is not correct in his belief that general and common understandings are “the result of an idolatry that developed into religion.” Idolatry is the worship of idols or false gods. That may be his opinion, but certainly likely not the opinion of the masses who worship, that their God is a false god, and I question how or why someone could or would make such a statement. Nevertheless, all are entitled to their opinion, as are you when you say that he is correct. Opinion, however, is not “fact,” and there is no “fact idolatry has infected Christianity ...” and again I question the representation of the Christian God as a false god and referring to their religion as an idolatry. Also,“idolatry” requires worship of some physical manifestation and Christian religion specifically forbids such.

Their deviant behavior is condemned by many more than Christians. In fact, most people openly disapprove of and condemn their deviancy, particularly the pedophilic child molestation characteristic they all share. And it is not that their deviancy “has become condemned,” it always has been. People have a natural revulsion; its only human, like seeing vomit or a dead animal in the road or anything that is gut-level objectionable. A person naturally cringes, is disgusted and offended by its presence, and will naturally want to withdraw.

Another issue of grave, grave concern is the compulsive nature of their deviancy. In every aspect, and, again, particularly in the cases of their pedophilic child molestation characteristic, their common refrain is that “I just couldn’t help myself.” They are compelled to sexually molest children and the most emotionally vulnerable. After all, propagation is a cosmic principle need and infection is their only means of propagation.

And it is this same compulsion, this inability to effect any self control over deviant sexual compulsion that should be of the most concern. Since they are so compelled by sexual deviancy, they are of course a liability in any situation because they can always be manipulated by the right offer of compulsive deviant behavior satisfaction. They simply wouldn’t be able to help themselves. Even now, being so easily manipulated due to their want of deviancy, they appear to be being used to create division for some purpose, by pressing for something that can never, ever be; normality in deviancy. But of course, that which deviates from normality can never be normal, and that which is normal cannot possibly deviate from normality as the two are mutually exclusive.

The Christian Mission appears to be the same as it has ever been, the development of humans through service to an omnipotent entity according to principles laid out in the religion’s representative material, its Holy Bible, and there does not appear to be any need for reverting.

I am not so personally invested that I follow most of the links or reference material. True matter should be able to stand on its own merit.

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#23938 Jan 5, 2014
Rosa_Winkel wrote:
<quoted text>
You have obviously debated on a high level. That makes the haters and "moralisers" on these threads no match for you.
Howzat?!!
I read two years at OxBridge. Rhodes.

The Fallacies are SO basic to critical thinking, I'm shocked that they aren't required memorisations starting at the Jr High level.

Also, our Speech and Debate classes made vicious and sustained use of the list of Fallacies in down-scoring muddy arguments.

They really aren't hard to learn and, once learned, can really transform how one reads and listens to the news, speeches and the arguments of all those trying to influence your thinking.

Make flash cards.
asd

Hawthorne, CA

#23939 Jan 5, 2014
akopen wrote:
<quoted text>
Interesting reply. I agree with, lets just say, half of what you say. Crazy, no, because society's perception is the beginning of society's behavior. Change does begin with a meaning. Once "deviancy" is attached to a meaning society acts differently than the intended word usage.
What was meant by the word abomination in the first place had to do with the more accurate translation, abhorrent. A simple check of the meaning of abhorrent reveals some of the descriptive synonyms but each synonyms have a distinct meaning and not the original meaning of the word "toevah." When you interpret the ancient Hebrew word to mean "deviant" or even "disgusting," are diametrically opposed. This is demonstrated in passages context. What is an abomination is what is different, and does not mix; Leviticus 20: 25,26. Where each occurence of the word abomination should have used the word, abhorrence, I find only one verse using abhorrence. It is evident given the context why the word abomination was not used. What becomes evident is that all the other verses should have been translated abhorrence instead of interpreting "toevah" to mean abomination. Hence, abomination must take on the meaning of abhorrence. The message changes dramatically with the correct translation, abhorrence. Also, the grammar, the usage of the word abomination within the context of the passage does not infer a sin, or an act against God. There is only one passage that the grammar reflects an act against God.
The same reasoning can be applied to the translation of "para physin" as used by Paul in the NT translated natural, unnatural and put into context of the passage.
Actually, don’t know if “deviancy” can be “attached to a meaning,” but can only describe behavior. It is simply that which deviates from normality or normalcy. It just is what it is.
What was meant by the word “abomination” is also crystal clear: loathsome, extremely repugnant or offensive, extremely unpleasant, of very bad quality, or very unpleasant to experience.
In a like manner “abhorrent,” simply has its natural and true meaning, again, it is that which is repugnant, arousing strong feelings of repugnance or disapproval, incompatible or conflicting with the natural order. The Bible writers who used these terms knew which terms they were using and obviously intended to say just what they said. Just what they felt. It is disingenuous to presume to dictate what they should have written or what words they “intended” to use. They used the words that applied most appropriately to the ideas they wanted to convey; that certain behavior is considered to be against the interest of humanity and that is what they expressed. Any are free to disagree, but it is impossible to change what was so clearly said and so plainly meant; and that is that certain behavior is abominable and deviant and those who practice such are abominations and deviants.

Since: Aug 09

Location hidden

#23940 Jan 5, 2014
snyper wrote:
<quoted text>
I read two years at OxBridge. Rhodes.
The Fallacies are SO basic to critical thinking, I'm shocked that they aren't required memorisations starting at the Jr High level.
Also, our Speech and Debate classes made vicious and sustained use of the list of Fallacies in down-scoring muddy arguments.
They really aren't hard to learn and, once learned, can really transform how one reads and listens to the news, speeches and the arguments of all those trying to influence your thinking.
Make flash cards.
Ha!

I am "schooled" by a Teacher of the disciplines and knowledge from yet another of the ancient "Schools."

So be it!

Flash Cards, it shall be!

“... truth will out.”

Since: May 08

Stratford, Connecticut.

#23941 Jan 5, 2014
snyper wrote:
<quoted text>
I read two years at OxBridge. Rhodes ...
Bill Clinton was a Rhodes scholar, but it didn't make him any less of a liar.

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#23942 Jan 5, 2014
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
And there you have the fruit of a scoffing reprobate.
That's what Jesus meant.
I have a brick that holds up the whole world too.

Since: Jun 13

Fairbanks, AK

#23943 Jan 5, 2014
#23936

I am not so personally invested that I follow most of the links or reference material. True matter should be able to stand on its own merit.

“There are three possible relations of the preliminary concerns to that which concerns us ultimately. The first is mutual indifference, the second is a relation in which a preliminary concern is elevated to ultimacy, and the third is one in which a preliminary concern becomes the vehicle of the ultimate concern without claiming ultimacy for itself. The first relation is predominant in ordinary life with its oscillation between conditional, partial, finite situations and experiences the moments when the question of the ultimate meaning of existence takes hold of us. Such a division, however, contradicts the unconditional, total, and infinite character of the religious concern. It places our ultimate concern beside other concerns ad deprives it of its ultimacy. This attitude sidesteps the ultimacy of the biblical commandments and that of the first theological criterion. The second relation is idolatrous in its very nature. Idolatry is the elevation of a preliminary concern to ultimacy. Something essentially conditioned of a preliminary concern to ultimacy. Something essentially conditioned is taken as unconditional, something essentially partial is boosted into universality, and something essentially finite is given infinite significance (the best example is the contemporary idolatry of religious nationalism). The conflict between the finite basis of such a concern and its infinite claim leads to a conflict of ultimates; it radically contradicts the biblical commandments and the first theological criterion. The third relation between the ultimate concern and the preliminary concerns makes the latter bearers and vehicles of the former. That which is a finite concern is not elevated to infinite significance, nor is it put beside the infinite, but in and through it the infinite becomes real. Nothing is excluded from this function. In and through every preliminary concern the ultimate concern can actualize itself. Whenever this happens, the preliminary concern becomes a possible object of theology. But theology deals with it only in so far as it is a medium, a vehicle, pointing beyond itself.”
The above quote, as Paul Tillich describes “three possible relations” of what “is the first formal criterion of theology:” The object of theology is what concerns us ultimately. Only those prepositions are theological which deal with their object in so far as it can become a matter of ultimate concerns for us.” The second relation is idolatrous in nature. What Tillich next says is very important to understanding idolatry.“Something essentially conditioned of a preliminary concern to ultimacy.” Furthermore, the conflict between the finite and the infinite leads to conflict with “biblical commandments.” Systematic Theology, Paul Tillich, Introduction, p. 12,13.

Asd, your understanding of idolatry is too simplistic. Idolatry is not, only about “some physical manifestation.” When Tillich speaks of “something essentially finite is given something infinitely significant” he is speaking about concerns actualized by man. Any concept of God is an actualizing, of man's perception of an infinite being. That is, raising man's perception of God, to the level of idolatry. No man knows God to say that their perception of God is their true God.

Cont.->

Since: Jun 13

Fairbanks, AK

#23944 Jan 5, 2014
Cont.:

As for, representing the Christian God as a false god ..., any perception of man's of God is idolatry. Raising the Bible to the status of the spoken Word of God, is idolatry. This is called Biblicism. The Bible speaks to mankind about man's relationship with God. Genesis 1:27 speaks to this relationship,“27God created mankind in his image;”, man's image is that connection to God. How silly for anyone to think that the image spoken of was about looks; how vane. To struggle to be like God is to reestablish that relationship, image or, to struggle to justify our likeness to God's purpose. As simple as, loving your neighbor.

Tried to find what prompted you to respond this way. I gave up. So if you could be so kind to reference Rev. Ken's post.

Ultimately, what you've are saying is that, Christianity is infallible, like the Biblicist says regarding the Bible. Must I remind you that Christian thought has changed drastically since the beginning of Early Church and that there are over 30,000 different denominations with their own doctrinal constitutions. To say that progressive Christians forsake the true mission of Christianity is to defend the false representation of what Christianity's ideology is all about in the first place. Tillich speaks of the best example of idolatry having to do with “religious nationalism.”

God's creation takes place every day. A star is born and a star dies. Man's struggle to return to the Creator is an essential part of man's life. It means that man must be open to the infinite. Man's finite existence is limited so change is necessary to move beyond the finite. This is our existence. This is our relationship with God. A continual renewal of our understanding within a finite existence. What we know today is changed understanding tomorrow.

I questioned KiMare about what God Bless America means. It related to the statement he made that God had his hand in establishing his marriage; or something like that. He stuck his foot in his mouth and has not responded to my questions regarding what God does and does not do. The question relates perfectly to my response to you, asd. KiMare can show a response to that belief that God interferes in many ways with mankind but I can also document that God does not. It would be a good discussion. But, KiMare is either too lazy to do the research (which goes against Biblicist's religion) or does not have a clue to what the answer is in the first place. God forbid that a Biblicist would use human reasoning to address a question. Oh, I forgot, that is all KiMare does, opinion as reason.

I assume that you then jump to the discussion about homosexuality. You speak of a deviant behavior as if such a thing is cultural, not about a religious cult, be it Christian or Judaism. In a real sense you have captured the real essence of the disgust that Leviticus speaks to using the word, toevah. Toevah conveying that disgust not sin. Linquistically, toevah means abhorrent and therefore is interpreted as a disgust. Along the lines of a “religious nationalism.” But then, you really did not mean that homosexuality was a disgusting thing as if it had nothing to do with religion.

Cont.->

Since: Jun 13

Fairbanks, AK

#23945 Jan 5, 2014
Cont.:

You then move on describing the “compulsive nature of pedophilia.” A little history shows that your opinion is warranted and yet misunderstood. What was a Greek way of life, man-boy child love, stopped when that boy became a man. Hence, homosexuality is not the issue. Culturally this was accepted and insisted on the respect of a boy becoming a man. Now, the Roman Empire was different. When the boy became a man the Empire did not have a cultural reference to respecting that once boy a man now. What was a love relationship now becomes an abuse, a sin. That compulsive nature you speak of is not associated with homosexuality. Homosexuals are not concerned about sex with boys. There is a difference. As the Church moved on in years, Eunuchs became an integral part of the clerical and doctrinal branches of the hierarchy. And, still is today. Documented history shows with a doubt that this was very much a part of the Early Church as it is today. Your claim of a need to infect is also wrong. It is not about propagation, that is to perpetuate homosexuality but, it is a means to assure that priests are plentyful. Homosexuality is perpetuated through creation, through propagation of heterosexual parents. Homosexuality is a natural order that has been denied since the Church's cover-up of pedophile priests. The Church uses homosexuality as a scapegoat.

What is “mutually exclusive” is your seemingly expert psychological abstraction of psychology. You neither document what you have said nor do you quote the Bible as documented proof of your seeming hatred for homosexuality.

No, the “Christian Mission” is not the same as it has always been. It is the same as when the Church at some point in history declared homosexuality as a sin and then as a disorder, removing that homosexuality was a sin. Fact is, the Church knows that they cannot show biblically that homosexuality is a sin, so they call it a disorder now. Fact is that the Early Church Fathers did not speak about homosexuality but they did speak of pedophilia. They did not use the word, pedophilia but, the defined abuse of male boys was most apparent. Remember that homosexuality was no more a word in the Early Church then was pedophilia. The difference is that the Early Church spoke about pedophilia as if it was a word and did not speak of homosexuality. Christianity is upside down today.

How you read your “Holy Bible” determines your personal god.

Fact is that the “True matter” does not stand on its own merit.

This is why Biblicists are idolatrous. Personal gods are idolatrous but they are so because of a personal interpretation.

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#23946 Jan 5, 2014
Joe DeCaro wrote:
<quoted text>
Bill Clinton was a Rhodes scholar, but it didn't make him any less of a liar.
What lie?

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#23947 Jan 5, 2014
As for, representing the Christian God as a false god ..., any perception of man's of God is idolatry. Raising the Bible to the status of the spoken Word of God, is idolatry. This is called Biblicism. The Bible speaks to mankind about man's relationship with God. Genesis 1:27 speaks to this relationship,“27God created mankind in his image;”, man's image is that connection to God. How silly for anyone to think that the image spoken of was about looks; how vane. To struggle to be like God is to reestablish that relationship, image or, to struggle to justify our likeness to God's purpose. As simple as, loving your neighbor.

EXACTLY

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 Colo. gay discrimination alleged over wedding cake (Jun '13) 45 min Respect71 53,611
News Op-Ed Columnist: I'm a White Man. Hear Me Out. 1 hr Wholly Silicon Wafer 2
News A 'radical sexual agenda' (Jun '06) 1 hr C Kersey 7
News CBB's Jemma Lucy talks lesbian sex in Celebrity... 1 hr Wholly Silicon Wafer 6
News Organist Says Fear of Trump Future Made Him Pai... 2 hr The Troll Stopper 11
News Patrick's Cabaret settles antigay discriminatio... 2 hr Wholly Silicon Wafer 8
News Mr Gay Europe wants to raise awareness around s... 2 hr The Troll Stopper 12
News What would Jesus say about same-sex marriage? (Jul '15) 8 hr RiccardoFire 8,372
40 years ago today 8 hr SteveO 6
FuNKY ARCHIVES 8 hr SteveO 4
News School district removes gay students' yearbook ... 10 hr DaveinMass 26
More from around the web