Homosexuality and the Bible

Homosexuality and the Bible

There are 36055 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: Aug 09

Location hidden

#24409 Jan 18, 2014
snyper wrote:
<quoted text>
(quoting a statement by Kimare) "bad and good codependency" ??!?!?

ROFLMFAO !!!!
All codependency is maladaptive and toxic.
You really need to give up pop psych and colloquial misuses in favor of actual clinical definitions.
Exactly right.

This guy regularly turns the dictionary into a box of pretzels.

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#24410 Jan 18, 2014
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
I treat everyone with respect. I have no mercy on denial.
I'm a redeemed cynic who remains barbarian. I love to sink the knife of reality, to the hilt, into the belly of denial and twist it with a smirk.
Smile.
Nonsense but live happily in your delusion Greg.

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#24411 Jan 18, 2014
Reverend Alan wrote:
<quoted text>
The reality is that there is no such thing as God. Do you have a shred of proof, or any evidence to support your assertions? None??? Shocking.
God is not a tangible entity. The existence of God is neither provable nor disprovable.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#24412 Jan 18, 2014
RevKen wrote:
<quoted text>
Exactly right.
This guy regularly turns the dictionary into a box of pretzels.
This from someone who desecrates marriage and sanctifies anal sex...
slaughter

Lakeview, OR

#24413 Jan 18, 2014
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
This from someone who desecrates marriage and sanctifies anal sex...
What about me? you didn't respond :(
slaughter

Lakeview, OR

#24414 Jan 18, 2014
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
I treat everyone with respect. I have no mercy on denial.
I'm a redeemed cynic who remains barbarian. I love to sink the knife of reality, to the hilt, into the belly of denial and twist it with a smirk.
Smile.
Do you really mean it or are you just sadistic or something? Both?
Akopen

North Pole, AK

#24415 Jan 18, 2014
Homosexuality: A Biblical Overview
Jim Denison, Denison Forum on Truth and Culture
Thursday, March 28, 2013
http://www.religiontoday.com/columnists/denis...
“Is this text a condemnation of homosexuality? Dr. Walter Wink believes not: "That was a case of ostensibly heterosexual males intent on humiliating strangers by treating them 'like women,' thus demasculinizing them" (p. 1). However, Dr. Wink offers no textual evidence that the men were "ostensibly heterosexual"; his view is only conjectural, and stands against the vast majority of interpretation across the centuries.”
What Dr. Wink does not acknowledge is what the passage actually says. 19: 4 speaks of “mortals of the city,”“mortals of Sodom,”“from lad unto old man,”“all the people,” and yet, the interpretation becomes,“men of the city,”“men of Sodom,”“old and young,”“all the people.”
What becomes apparent is that both the translation and the interpretation addresses “all the people.” Not just men. The question of whether homosexuality comes to play here, as questioned by Denison, Dr. Wink's exegesis, as conjectural suprizingly, is also conjectural. Without any evidence except that Denison relies on “the majority of interpretation across the centuries.”
Denison intends to expound on what the Bible intends to teach on this subject.
While the meaning of 19 may well be sexual it is also about inhospitality, rape. As a side, interestingly, Lot offers up his daughters to protect the messengers from God. 19:8, Lot says to “all the towns people,”“do to them as you please.”“I shall bring forth my two daughters that have not know any man.”( My paraphrase.) The word “know” here indicates the sexual context of knowing the messengers.
One aspect of this passage that has not yet been addressed are the two messengers, or angels. Genesis 6 brings to light angels coming down to earth. Verse 4 says,“after sons of heaven had intercourse with the daughters of man.” The townspeople were not interested in the angels because they were homosexuals but because they wanted their women to have intercourse with the angels. Offspring from angels were superhuman, giants with great strength.
When one examines the context of a passage within the chapter's context and even define the issues of previous biblical passages, as is evidenced in Genesis 6. The meaning becomes very real instead of some fairy tale.
Genesis 19 is not about homosexuality. Nor is it evident in Early Christianity that homosexuality was an issue. Without further study suffice it too say that the Early Church spoke of pedophilia not homosexuality. No where in Genesis 19 does it indicate that sexual molestation of children was an issue.

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#24416 Jan 18, 2014
RevKen wrote:
<quoted text>
Exactly right.
This guy regularly turns the dictionary into a box of pretzels.
Isn't that the truth.!

And from another thread: he particularly has exegesis and eisegesis completely conflated and confused. Rather blind to the distinction, in fact.

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#24417 Jan 18, 2014
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
This from someone who desecrates marriage and sanctifies anal sex...
Civil Marriage is not a religious institution, so it can neither be sacerdotalised not desecrated.

The same applies to eroticism, though assorted fertility religions certainly tried to make it appear so.

Your statement is merely another example of Calvinist Dominionism. You arrogate to yourselves the prerogative to define and dominate all aspects of life, from birth to death and beyond. Absolutist TOTALITARIANISM.

You will just have to understand if we reject that arrogance ... and resist.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#24418 Jan 18, 2014
Akopen wrote:
Homosexuality: A Biblical Overview
Jim Denison, Denison Forum on Truth and Culture
Thursday, March 28, 2013
http://www.religiontoday.com/columnists/denis...
“Is this text a condemnation of homosexuality? Dr. Walter Wink believes not: "That was a case of ostensibly heterosexual males intent on humiliating strangers by treating them 'like women,' thus demasculinizing them" (p. 1). However, Dr. Wink offers no textual evidence that the men were "ostensibly heterosexual"; his view is only conjectural, and stands against the vast majority of interpretation across the centuries.”
What Dr. Wink does not acknowledge is what the passage actually says. 19: 4 speaks of “mortals of the city,”“mortals of Sodom,”“from lad unto old man,”“all the people,” and yet, the interpretation becomes,“men of the city,”“men of Sodom,”“old and young,”“all the people.”
What becomes apparent is that both the translation and the interpretation addresses “all the people.” Not just men. The question of whether homosexuality comes to play here, as questioned by Denison, Dr. Wink's exegesis, as conjectural suprizingly, is also conjectural. Without any evidence except that Denison relies on “the majority of interpretation across the centuries.”
Denison intends to expound on what the Bible intends to teach on this subject.
While the meaning of 19 may well be sexual it is also about inhospitality, rape. As a side, interestingly, Lot offers up his daughters to protect the messengers from God. 19:8, Lot says to “all the towns people,”“do to them as you please.”“I shall bring forth my two daughters that have not know any man.”( My paraphrase.) The word “know” here indicates the sexual context of knowing the messengers.
One aspect of this passage that has not yet been addressed are the two messengers, or angels. Genesis 6 brings to light angels coming down to earth. Verse 4 says,“after sons of heaven had intercourse with the daughters of man.” The townspeople were not interested in the angels because they were homosexuals but because they wanted their women to have intercourse with the angels. Offspring from angels were superhuman, giants with great strength.
When one examines the context of a passage within the chapter's context and even define the issues of previous biblical passages, as is evidenced in Genesis 6. The meaning becomes very real instead of some fairy tale.
Genesis 19 is not about homosexuality. Nor is it evident in Early Christianity that homosexuality was an issue. Without further study suffice it too say that the Early Church spoke of pedophilia not homosexuality. No where in Genesis 19 does it indicate that sexual molestation of children was an issue.
You are being obtuse. The morality of the Bible is clear; all sexual activity is between a man and woman within marriage.

Moreover, when someone is attracted to the opposite sex, they are heterosexual. When they are attracted to same sex, they are homosexual. When that gender is a child, they are either a heterosexual pedophile, or a homosexual pedophile.
.
That is important for the sake of children. Take your pc indignation and stuff it.

Genesis 19:4-5 (NASB)
Before they lay down, the men of the city, the men of Sodom, surrounded the house, both young and old, all the people from every quarter;
5 and they called to Lot and said to him, "Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us that we may have relations with them."

Where does it say anything about women?
Where does it say they knew the visitors were angels?

You really need to get another hobby...

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#24419 Jan 18, 2014
snyper wrote:
<quoted text>
Civil Marriage is not a religious institution, so it can neither be sacerdotalised not desecrated.
The same applies to eroticism, though assorted fertility religions certainly tried to make it appear so.
Your statement is merely another example of Calvinist Dominionism. You arrogate to yourselves the prerogative to define and dominate all aspects of life, from birth to death and beyond. Absolutist TOTALITARIANISM.
You will just have to understand if we reject that arrogance ... and resist.
There you go again.

Just because I used religious terminology doesn't necessarily mean I was referring to a religious view. In fact, you know I usually don't. Nor do I dumb down marriage to a civil constraint.

I have clearly noted that at it's most basic essence, marriage is a cross cultural constraint on evolutionary mating behavior. I used 'desecrate' in the sense of such a horrible abuse of reality by the attempt to equate a mating behavior defect with the the fulfillment of mating behavior.

You top that off by continually trying to dignify a harmful, unhealthy and abusive behavior. This in spite of obvious violations of purpose, not to mention medical opinion warning the same.

I expected more from you than I do from ak and the rev...

Since: Jun 13

North Pole, AK

#24420 Jan 18, 2014
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
You are being obtuse. The morality of the Bible is clear; all sexual activity is between a man and woman within marriage.
Moreover, when someone is attracted to the opposite sex, they are heterosexual. When they are attracted to same sex, they are homosexual. When that gender is a child, they are either a heterosexual pedophile, or a homosexual pedophile.
.
That is important for the sake of children. Take your pc indignation and stuff it.
Genesis 19:4-5 (NASB)
Before they lay down, the men of the city, the men of Sodom, surrounded the house, both young and old, all the people from every quarter;
5 and they called to Lot and said to him, "Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us that we may have relations with them."
Where does it say anything about women?
Where does it say they knew the visitors were angels?
You really need to get another hobby...
What Dr. Wink does not acknowledge is what the passage actually says. 19: 4 speaks of “mortals of the city,”“mortals of Sodom,”“from lad unto old man,”“all the people,” and yet, the interpretation becomes,“men of the city,”“men of Sodom,”“old and young,”“all the people.” http://www.scripture4all.org/OnlineInterlinea...

Feeling a little uncertain, are we?

If you mean slow to accept your moralistic Christian faith, ya, you got it! LOL!

There is a difference between your ignorance and my research. You can't argue intelligently and I can at least keep seeking greater truths.

Great effort, KiMare. The whole world now knows about your insolence. Well, you know what I mean. Anybody that has access to the internet.

Since: Jun 13

North Pole, AK

#24421 Jan 18, 2014
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
There you go again.
Just because I used religious terminology doesn't necessarily mean I was referring to a religious view. In fact, you know I usually don't. Nor do I dumb down marriage to a civil constraint.
I have clearly noted that at it's most basic essence, marriage is a cross cultural constraint on evolutionary mating behavior. I used 'desecrate' in the sense of such a horrible abuse of reality by the attempt to equate a mating behavior defect with the the fulfillment of mating behavior.
You top that off by continually trying to dignify a harmful, unhealthy and abusive behavior. This in spite of obvious violations of purpose, not to mention medical opinion warning the same.
I expected more from you than I do from ak and the rev...
I reject your arrogance, KiMare.

Since: Jun 13

North Pole, AK

#24422 Jan 18, 2014
The Leviticus Prohibition
“The obvious sense of the command seems to be: homosexual sexual relations are forbidden by Scripture. This is the way the text has typically been understood by Jewish and Christian interpreters across the centuries. It is the way most read the text still today.” http://www.religiontoday.com/columnists/denis...

The argument here is that “the text has been understood ... for centuries.” Actually, centuries means 2000 years of Christian thought. But that is not true either. The Early Church Fathers were not concerned with homosexuality because they knew that the concern had to do with what we call pedophilia. It has to do with the true meaning of the words, fornication and adultery, abomination against God or against culture. The whole answer to whether Leviticus 18:22 condemns homosexuality lies with the Hebrew translation. The Hebrew translation for the word “thuobe” is not abomination but, abhorrence.

The dictionary definition for abhorrence is:

ab·hor·rence
/ab&#712;hôr&#601;ns,- &#712;här-/
noun
noun: abhorrence
1. 1.
a feeling of repulsion; disgusted loathing.
"the thought of marrying him filled her with abhorrence"
synonyms:
hatred, loathing, detestation, execration, revulsion, abomination, disgust, repugnance, horror, odium, aversion More
"the sight of drug dealers on his street fills him with abhorrence"

Note that a synonym of abhorrence is abomination as well as is disgust. Nowhere in this definition does it state that an act is against God. That is a different word in Hebrew. 22 does not say that lying with a man as one lies with a woman is an abomination against God. What 22 does say is that it was detestable to Israel then but does not mean that it is detestable, now. This is an abhorrence of a culture, Israel, about a religious cult. It was important to Israel at the time and it was Israel's legislation, Israel's constitution. A real sense of nationalism.

Again, Denison relies on:“faith”[as if the development of Christian thought is relevant to Old Testament Law] and,“the Christian church.” The study of Christian thought, 2000 years of discourse, is still developing. To think that Christian faith has been correct, absolute truth is asinine. To leave a Christian's salvation up to the absolutes that most Christians believe in, is also asinine. Why? Because 2000 years of discourse has changed over and over again. To this day and 30,000 denominations later everyone has their own opinion about what a Christian faith is all about. Nobody pays attention to what started Christianity anymore. Christianity defines what Jesus taught as if they were that Jesus.

Leviticus addresses “sacrificial and other ritual laws presecribed for the priests of the tribe of Levi.” NAB1971. Leviticus addresses ritual of sacrifices; ceremony of ordination; Laws regarding legal purity; the holiness code; and, redemption of offerings. Leviticus is Israel's constitution.

Lastly, Denison tries to associate the prohibition of homosexuality with slavery as if homosexuality can be excused like slavery has been by Christiainity. Denison has failed again to address exactly what was the true translation of Leviticus.

Since: Aug 09

Location hidden

#24423 Jan 19, 2014
Mycroft wrote:
<quoted text> Ask god to do anything for you. Anything at all, something simple. Ask him to move that pencil across the desk. Did he, hmm? Is he there for even you?
Ask God why you were given the ability to issue a command from your mind to tap out a sequence of characters with your fingers that others can understand.

Hmm?

Since: Aug 09

Location hidden

#24424 Jan 19, 2014
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
This from someone who desecrates marriage and sanctifies anal sex...
LOL!!!.... YOUR characterizations and opinionated assertions. You are certainly welcome to them. It is a free country.

As for myself, I don't make it my business to tell mutually consensual adults what intimacy they can do and how they can do it in the privacy of their own time and choosing, especially within the bonds and vows of their own care and trusting acceptance of each other.

But, since you choose to make the intimate behavior of others, especially anything having to do with their anuses, your business, I recommend that you take more time to watch people engaging in this behavior.

Then you will be able to identify them and can report them to the proper and final authorities before or when your last opportunity to make your accusations about them in front of their judge comes to you.

Jesus said, "Recognize what is in your sight, and that which is hidden from you will become plain to you . For there is nothing hidden which will not become manifest."

Rev. Ken

Since: Aug 09

Location hidden

#24425 Jan 19, 2014
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
There you go again.
Just because I used religious terminology doesn't necessarily mean I was referring to a religious view. In fact, you know I usually don't. Nor do I dumb down marriage to a civil constraint.
I have clearly noted that at it's most basic essence, marriage is a cross cultural constraint on evolutionary mating behavior. I used 'desecrate' in the sense of such a horrible abuse of reality by the attempt to equate a mating behavior defect with the the fulfillment of mating behavior.
You top that off by continually trying to dignify a harmful, unhealthy and abusive behavior. This in spite of obvious violations of purpose, not to mention medical opinion warning the same.
I expected more from you than I do from ak and the rev...
Don't really know WHAT you expect of me or Ak, Kim. Furthermore, it probably doesn't matter all that much, in the entire scheme of things.

On the other hand, physics requires that a gnat, by simply landing on the passenger rail on the Titanic, moves the whole ship. So, if that much is true, what you expect of one is no less or more important than what you might expect of another, or even of yourself. Therein lies the paradox of a life in a Quantum reality.

You say, "Just because I used religious terminology doesn't necessarily mean I was referring to a religious view. In fact, you know I usually don't. Nor do I dumb down marriage to a civil constraint."

Then, you write, "... that at it's most basic essence, marriage is a cross cultural constraint on evolutionary mating behavior," identifying marriage as a civil constraint.

So, either you don't understand what you say and have written or you don't know how to say what you mean.

There is a difference between the "spiritual" and the "religious," just as there is a difference between what is "evolutionary" and what is "civil." Although in both comparisons, one results in the other. The latter in both being an accomodation.

Hence the perceived need for "sacerdotalization" of marriage and the difference between such a sanctification and a civil marriage which confers Constitutional right. There is also a recognition of common ground between "spiritual right" and Constitutional right," even if a theocracy is not intended. That is because the Constitution recognizes the actual and legitimate right of the ultimate minority, the individual, and derives its authority to establish "rights" from the natural and the spiritual nature of Man.

It is not a desecration to recognize the uniqueness and expressive right of the individual to find spiritual freedom within the bounds of an intimate agreement with another and to call it marriage, either spiritual or civil, and in such an agreement, allowing the two to become recognized as one.

In fact, it is downright "Christian."

E pluribus unum.

Jesus said, "Where there are three gods, they are gods. Where there are two or one, I am with him."

Rev. Ken

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#24426 Jan 19, 2014
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
You are being obtuse. The morality of the Bible is clear; all sexual activity is between a man and woman within marriage.
Moreover, when someone is attracted to the opposite sex, they are heterosexual. When they are attracted to same sex, they are homosexual. When that gender is a child, they are either a heterosexual pedophile, or a homosexual pedophile.
.
That is important for the sake of children. Take your pc indignation and stuff it.
Genesis 19:4-5 (NASB)
Before they lay down, the men of the city, the men of Sodom, surrounded the house, both young and old, all the people from every quarter;
5 and they called to Lot and said to him, "Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us that we may have relations with them."
Where does it say anything about women?
Where does it say they knew the visitors were angels?
You really need to get another hobby...
akopen wrote:
<quoted text>
What Dr. Wink does not acknowledge is what the passage actually says. 19: 4 speaks of “mortals of the city,”“mortals of Sodom,”“from lad unto old man,”“all the people,” and yet, the interpretation becomes,“men of the city,”“men of Sodom,”“old and young,”“all the people.” http://www.scripture4all.org/OnlineInterlinea...
Feeling a little uncertain, are we?
If you mean slow to accept your moralistic Christian faith, ya, you got it! LOL!
There is a difference between your ignorance and my research. You can't argue intelligently and I can at least keep seeking greater truths.
Great effort, KiMare. The whole world now knows about your insolence. Well, you know what I mean. Anybody that has access to the internet.
Could not access your 'documentation'. How does Strong's translate it?

You were wise to concede about gay pedophilia.

Smile.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#24427 Jan 19, 2014
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
There you go again.
Just because I used religious terminology doesn't necessarily mean I was referring to a religious view. In fact, you know I usually don't. Nor do I dumb down marriage to a civil constraint.
I have clearly noted that at it's most basic essence, marriage is a cross cultural constraint on evolutionary mating behavior. I used 'desecrate' in the sense of such a horrible abuse of reality by the attempt to equate a mating behavior defect with the the fulfillment of mating behavior.
You top that off by continually trying to dignify a harmful, unhealthy and abusive behavior. This in spite of obvious violations of purpose, not to mention medical opinion warning the same.
I expected more from you than I do from ak and the rev...
RevKen wrote:
<quoted text>
You say, "Just because I used religious terminology doesn't necessarily mean I was referring to a religious view. In fact, you know I usually don't. Nor do I dumb down marriage to a civil constraint."
Then, you write, "... that at it's most basic essence, marriage is a cross cultural constraint on evolutionary mating behavior," identifying marriage as a civil constraint.
So, either you don't understand what you say and have written or you don't know how to say what you mean.
...
Rev. Ken
rev, this is why I don't expect as much from you.

You know right well that a cultural constraint involves far more than just civil issues.

You need to go to a real church today and repent.

Since: Feb 09

Location hidden

#24428 Jan 19, 2014
WasteWater wrote:
<quoted text>
God is not a tangible entity. The existence of God is neither provable nor disprovable.
Clearly it can't be proven, and if we also can't prove it doesn't exist then why should we live as if it does? It's not like it has any effect on anyone's life one way or the other.

Does anyone live differently because they believe there is a God? I mean more than lip service!

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 Why does the Texas criminal code still ban "hom... 1 min Just Think 1
News 'Reading a book can't turn you gay,' say author... 16 min Dont Homo Me 87
News What would Jesus say about same-sex marriage? (Jul '15) 23 min Wondering 5,416
News Colo. gay discrimination alleged over wedding cake (Jun '13) 25 min Wondering 46,328
News Catholic Church Waging War on Women and Gays (Oct '07) 36 min Junket 217,515
News Anxiety in America up since Donald Trump became... 1 hr jonjedi 79
News 'Free Kim Davis': This is just what gay rights ... (Sep '15) 1 hr Strel 25,265
More from around the web