Homosexuality and the Bible

Aug 15, 2011 Full story: www.smh.com.au 29,693

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.

Full Story

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#23951 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.
Is that the topic now ... according to you ?

Do you EVER inhale?

Since: Jun 13

Anchorage, AK

#23952 Jan 5, 2014
asd wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
Asd, you do a pretty good job defining “abomination.” More to the point, your last statement regarding the meaning of abomination defines what Leviticus was speaking to regarding what was an abomination; “a very unpleasant experience.” The use of abomination although is an interpretation. When the correct translation is abhorrent, where abomination is being interpreted it just did not fit well in Leviticus18: 23. Note all other uses of abomination. Verse 23 just could not be translated abomination. What is the difference between 22 and 23 that warrants two different interpretations?(NAB 1971.)

What the writers intended was what they wrote but what interpretations intended were all too often “sententious and moralistic.” It is up to you to separate personal “splits and projections.” Perversions and Near Perversions in Clinical Practice.(See previous documentation.)

In an earlier post I documented what is a perversion, a hatred or rage signifying an action and defined as a sin. Again, every instance of the modern translation's use of the word perversion must be compared to the original intent of the writer and comparing the translation to what is interpreted. I have found that the Bible does clearly define these terms but is all too often projected, interpreted as a personal split.

Since: Jun 13

Anchorage, AK

#23953 Jan 5, 2014
Joe DeCaro wrote:
<quoted text>
You can start with: "I did not have sex with that woman ..."
The legal description of sex then was intercourse. Did Pres. Clinton have intercourse?

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#23954 Jan 5, 2014
akopen wrote:
<quoted text>
Asd, you do a pretty good job defining “abomination.” More to the point, your last statement regarding the meaning of abomination defines what Leviticus was speaking to regarding what was an abomination; “a very unpleasant experience.” The use of abomination although is an interpretation. When the correct translation is abhorrent, where abomination is being interpreted it just did not fit well in Leviticus18: 23. Note all other uses of abomination. Verse 23 just could not be translated abomination. What is the difference between 22 and 23 that warrants two different interpretations?(NAB 1971.)
What the writers intended was what they wrote but what interpretations intended were all too often “sententious and moralistic.” It is up to you to separate personal “splits and projections.” Perversions and Near Perversions in Clinical Practice.(See previous documentation.)
In an earlier post I documented what is a perversion, a hatred or rage signifying an action and defined as a sin. Again, every instance of the modern translation's use of the word perversion must be compared to the original intent of the writer and comparing the translation to what is interpreted. I have found that the Bible does clearly define these terms but is all too often projected, interpreted as a personal split.
It's really more complicated even than that.

http://jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/352-ab...
asd

Hawthorne, CA

#23955 Jan 5, 2014
akopen wrote:
#23936
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.
->
Again, Tillich is of course entitled to posit his opinion as to the ultimate concerns of humanity. However, the general and commonly accepted understanding is that what ultimately concerns mankind is self-preservation and perpetuation of the species, with the latter being anathema to the infected, as they do not comprise a species and lack any ability to perpetuate.

It is not my understanding of idolatry that is simplistic; it is the concept of idolatry itself that is so simple. It, again, simply is what it is: idol worship, that is, worship of a physical representation of deity. Perception cannot possibly be idolatry because there is no physical representation associated with the concept of perception as such is ideology, and ephemeral.

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#23956 Jan 5, 2014
Joe DeCaro wrote:
<quoted text>
You can start with: "I did not have sex with that woman ..."
He didn't. According to the real definition of sex, they needed to bump uglies. They never did.

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#23957 Jan 5, 2014
akopen wrote:
<quoted text>
The legal description of sex then was intercourse. Did Pres. Clinton have intercourse?
Excellent. A+
asd

Hawthorne, CA

#23958 Jan 5, 2014
akopen wrote:
<quoted text>
Asd, you do a pretty good job defining “abomination.” More to the point, your last statement regarding the meaning of abomination defines what Leviticus was speaking to regarding what was an abomination; “a very unpleasant experience.” The use of abomination although is an interpretation. When the correct translation is abhorrent, where abomination is being interpreted it just did not fit well in Leviticus18: 23. Note all other uses of abomination. Verse 23 just could not be translated abomination. What is the difference between 22 and 23 that warrants two different interpretations?(NAB 1971.)
What the writers intended was what they wrote but what interpretations intended were all too often “sententious and moralistic.” It is up to you to separate personal “splits and projections.” Perversions and Near Perversions in Clinical Practice.(See previous documentation.)
In an earlier post I documented what is a perversion, a hatred or rage signifying an action and defined as a sin. Again, every instance of the modern translation's use of the word perversion must be compared to the original intent of the writer and comparing the translation to what is interpreted. I have found that the Bible does clearly define these terms but is all too often projected, interpreted as a personal split.
The use of the word “abomination” can not be an “interpretation.” An “interpretation” would be that which is inferred by the reader.
Also, what a “perversion” is cannot really be “documented,” as such, although acts of perversion can be. What a perversion is relates to the word’s definition and is clearly established. A “perversion” is a sexual practice considered immoral and unacceptable or the changing of something good, true, or correct into something bad or wrong, or a situation in which the change has occurred.
Join Free

Since: Jun 13

Anchorage, AK

#23959 Jan 5, 2014
asd wrote:
<quoted text>
Again, Tillich is of course entitled to posit his opinion as to the ultimate concerns of humanity. However, the general and commonly accepted understanding is that what ultimately concerns mankind is self-preservation and perpetuation of the species, with the latter being anathema to the infected, as they do not comprise a species and lack any ability to perpetuate.
It is not my understanding of idolatry that is simplistic; it is the concept of idolatry itself that is so simple. It, again, simply is what it is: idol worship, that is, worship of a physical representation of deity. Perception cannot possibly be idolatry because there is no physical representation associated with the concept of perception as such is ideology, and ephemeral.
What can I say. Your personal god is your understanding. I tried to present to you the theology of Paul Tillich (the greatest theologian of the last century). Tillich's (opinion as you call it) theology develops with clarity man's understanding of Christianity as was done by the great theologians of all time; especially, Thomas Aquinas, but better. Tillich has the advantage of Christian thought over 2000 years. That is, Tillich takes all the past development of Christian thought and applies the basic understandings of Christian symbolism and utilizes the philosophy used by the Early Church in its development. Tillich uses an understanding of psychology as well. His attempt to put together the story of Christian thought and his theology is unsurpassed by any other attempt.

So, your opinion and what you call Christianity's long standing (psuedo-Christian, upside-down ideology) against the best mind in theology.

The concept of theology is simple but not exclusively a physical idol. You missed the simple meaning of idolatry and limited it to an idol.

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#23960 Jan 5, 2014
WasteWater wrote:
<quoted text>
He didn't. According to the real definition of sex, they needed to bump uglies. They never did.
"bump uglies" ??? LOLOLOL

Shades of Edward Albee!

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#23961 Jan 5, 2014
asd wrote:
<quoted text>
The use of the word “abomination” can not be an “interpretation.” An “interpretation” would be that which is inferred by the reader.
Also, what a “perversion” is cannot really be “documented,” as such, although acts of perversion can be. What a perversion is relates to the word’s definition and is clearly established. A “perversion” is a sexual practice considered immoral and unacceptable or the changing of something good, true, or correct into something bad or wrong, or a situation in which the change has occurred.
Of course it is, child. "Abomination" is NOT a Hebrew word.

Referential Fallacy
Reification Fallacy

Lose 3 points.

Since: Mar 07

Rhoadesville, VA

#23962 Jan 5, 2014
asd wrote:
<quoted text>
The use of the word “abomination” can not be an “interpretation.” An “interpretation” would be .........
The translation can, and often is. As can the context. In the case of Leviticus, it is a Ancient Hebrew Holiness Code that is not followed by any Christian alive today, and the word "abomination" means ritually unclean for pri

“Electronic graffiti”

Since: Jun 13

Botany Bay

#23963 Jan 6, 2014
asd wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
Sounds like you're talking all about some Catholic priests.

“Electronic graffiti”

Since: Jun 13

Botany Bay

#23964 Jan 6, 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.
Very interesting. I'll have to study up on it myself.

All I can say is no wonder.you have it over some of the posters on here. An Oxford scholar compared to the pathetic verbose alumni of Hicksville Bible College that we all know.

Flash cards it is.

“Electronic graffiti”

Since: Jun 13

Botany Bay

#23965 Jan 6, 2014
WasteWater wrote:
<quoted text>
He didn't. According to the real definition of sex, they needed to bump uglies. They never did.
Later on, he was forced to admit it.

"While my answers were legally accurate, I did not volunteer information.
"Indeed, I did have a relationship with Miss Lewinsky that was not appropriate. In fact, it was wrong."
http://edition.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1998/08/17...

At the time there were jokes on the radio about the vaccuum cleaner which had 3 settings: Low, High and Lewinsky.

“... truth will out.”

Since: May 08

Stratford, Connecticut.

#23966 Jan 6, 2014
akopen wrote:
<quoted text>
The legal description of sex then was intercourse. Did Pres. Clinton have intercourse?
The DNC mantra claiming that "Oral sex isn't sex" is not only ridiculous but grammatically impossible, or like Clinton, do you too have a legal definition of what "is" means?

“THERE IS NO GOD”

Since: Feb 09

Northern California

#23967 Jan 6, 2014
Joe DeCaro wrote:
<quoted text>
Bill Clinton was a Rhodes scholar, but it didn't make him any less of a liar.
Each of your posts here makes you more of a liar.

“THERE IS NO GOD”

Since: Feb 09

Northern California

#23968 Jan 6, 2014
RevKen wrote:
<quoted text>[irrelevant 'wind-bag' snipped]
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.
.
I am not going to enter into a pissing match with you. I ask questions that I already know the answer to because based on what I have read in your posts you do not "see" yourself as you actually are but as how the vast majority of people imagine themselves to be. I know this is very offensive and I know how human beings can not admit to not knowing something and will do everything to make it look like they know more than they know. That is a competition I have no interest in.

Actually I know a lot about you. For one thing, you are what is called "a wind bag" meaning you love to write lots of words that have nothing to do with the discussion at hand.

Your reply is completely defensive while I have not attacked you.

Please explain what this "Self" is that you claim I do not know.

“THERE IS NO GOD”

Since: Feb 09

Northern California

#23969 Jan 6, 2014
RevKen wrote:
<quoted text>
May God Bless the Infinitely Wonderful Architect and Engineer and Artistic Musician that created this astounding cacaphony of harmonic processes!
There is no creator Ken. The Universe exists and it has always existed. Sure it went through a phase transition about 15 billion years ago but that all "just happened" all according to the laws of the Universe.

If you want to "bless" universal processes the only way to do so is to participate in what the Universe is doing. Are you participating in what the Universe is doing?

I ask already knowing the answer because I want you to consider why you do not. Again, please do not turn this into a pissing match and there is no need to defend yourself as you are not being attacked.

Yes the Universe is a wonderful place full of marvelous wonders. As are human beings wonderful 'places' full of marvelous wonders that few even expect exist and fewer still make their own. What good does it do to know about chocolate cake and cherry pie if you can't ever eat any?

What did humanity arise in this bio-sphere? Why do you exist? And why, based on what you write here, are you only interested in what goes on outside of you? How many times in a day do you take a time out and actually experience that you exist?

“THERE IS NO GOD”

Since: Feb 09

Northern California

#23970 Jan 6, 2014
RevKen wrote:
<quoted text>So what if I don't even bother with trying to consciously manage all of it all of the time?
That is your "doer" speaking again, "just tell me what to do and I'll do it". You do not have one of these Master I's, a single individual I that is in charge inside yourself. What you have are lots of little i's each taking their turn speaking as if it were the Master because no such Master exists.

Now I know that me saying this will cause panic amongst your little i's and that they will not like being told that they are just one of many and do not know everything there is to know and that they will want to defend themselves and in the process drag you along with them.

A conscious state is a higher state and only possible for those who have a Master I that can watch all the little i's each taking their turn speaking for the Master.

There is no "I" in you that manages anything, it is an illusion just as powerful as the illusion we experience in our lives watching the sun go across the sky. That is how we experience it but it is not what is really going on. It is the earth that is rotating and we believe the illusion that that creates. I mean if the earth was moving we'd surely feel it right?

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
Transgender Bruce Jenner will be lesbian after ... 43 min The New Righteous 1 65
Why this obsession with what gay people do in b... (Jan '13) 1 hr Powerful Information 140
Colo. gay discrimination alleged over wedding cake (Jun '13) 1 hr Frankie Rizzo 15,268
Why I'll be voting 'No' to same-sex marriage, e... 1 hr Terra Firma 1,042
I'm gay. And I want my kid to be gay, too 1 hr NoahLovesU 127
Pediatrician Won't Treat Baby With Lesbian Moms 1 hr NoahLovesU 184
Obama is still misleading us on same-sex marriage 2 hr Marissa 111
Biggest Gay Lies (May '14) 2 hr NoahLovesU 3,253
Officer in gay pride parade incident speaks out 8 hr WeTheSheeple 41
More from around the web