Homosexuality and the Bible

Homosexuality and the Bible

There are 36060 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

North Pole, AK

#24768 Feb 4, 2014
Burt wrote:
<quoted text>You apparently know amazingly little about Christianity or about the founding of America. The Founding Fathers were mostly deeply religious by today's standard. They made no effort to keep religious views out of politics. Quite to the contrary, much of our law and government was based on Christian Principles. They did disestablish religion, i.e. there could no longer be an official tax supported state church as was the case in Virginia and many other colonies.
Christianity is also amazingly unified on the topic at hand. The Bible very clearly and repeatedly condemns all homosexual behavior in both Testaments. We know that this was the view of Christians from the very earliest times. The Didache, for example, is likely the earliest non-Scriptural Christian document. It makes it plain that both homosexual acts and abortion were condemned in the Early Church.
All Americans have a right to vote in line with their values and views. Of course the horrible hate based homofascist movement has attempted to take this right away in many states. That does not make it right!
Hi Lacon.

Not only do you get the Bible wrong but you get the Founding Fathers wrong too. You need to go back and read some original documents regarding what the Founding Fathers purpose was. And, please learn how to read the Bible. For you to make a statement that I don't seem to have read the Bible is purely your assumption. What you really mean to say is that no Christian denomination nor the Church thinks alike. What you really mean to say is that all Christianity must think and do as you do.

Lacon, if you can document your belief then do so but be aware that I am well read in the Bible and history, history of Christian thought and Judaism and I will document how I address your contention on biblical exegesis. Just keep in mind that your personal interpretation is not documentation. That is to say that no literal reading of the Bible is a documentation. You may begin with a premise but must end with documentation as to its interpretation. In the end, neither you nor I will agree but then we will respect each other's efforts to understand.

Hence, no one knows God and cannot speak for God.

Since: Jun 13

North Pole, AK

#24769 Feb 4, 2014
WasteWater wrote:
<quoted text>
Thank you bro. Inspiration is a gift. The Bible is full of such gifts after sifting through the legalistic crap and mining the jewels.
Very well said. That is exactly what I meant. I believe Hebrew Scripture was intended to provide an ethical system among other things. There is a mystical thread running through it, however.
It is good and refreshing to know that others get it.

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#24770 Feb 4, 2014
akopen wrote:
<quoted text>
No, you present your personal opinion. Everytime you present documentation it is a biblical passage interpreted by your own personal interest. Your personal god is just your idol. Idolatry fits you well.
Exactly.

Funny thing is the myth also condemns. Building a tower to a false God is the same as worshiping the Bible. Both are forms of idolatry. The people got together like many Christians, organizing themselves into a futile endeavor. There is no tower high enough to reach God. People can believe and worship all they want, they will never reach God that way.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#24772 Feb 4, 2014
WasteWater wrote:
<quoted text>
It never existed in the first place. The story is mythological. What we do know is that Biblical traditions per se, were started in the Tigris and Euphrates Valley as city civilizations developed around 6,000 years ago.
An inner God is irrelevant to the discussion. The concept of God is much older than the Bible.
First, I was responding to your claim about the location.

Second, you have no proof it never existed.

Third, you brought up the inner god, not me.

Fourth, FINALLY you got something right.

Smile.

Since: Jun 13

North Pole, AK

#24773 Feb 4, 2014
WasteWater wrote:
<quoted text>
Exactly.
Funny thing is the myth also condemns. Building a tower to a false God is the same as worshiping the Bible. Both are forms of idolatry. The people got together like many Christians, organizing themselves into a futile endeavor. There is no tower high enough to reach God. People can believe and worship all they want, they will never reach God that way.
The irony of it all. Social clubs.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#24774 Feb 4, 2014
akopen wrote:
<quoted text>
No, you present your personal opinion. Everytime you present documentation it is a biblical passage interpreted by your own personal interest. Your personal god is just your idol. Idolatry fits you well.
It may be my opinion, but it fits the context AND agrees with the vast majority of Biblical scholars and Christians.

That does not change the fact that your explanation makes NO sense in context.

I keep hoping you will present something that inspires me, but I think your anger and bitterness undermine it every time...

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#24775 Feb 4, 2014
rabnew wrote:
<quoted text>
It's all too confusing though. I started going to church a few years ago. When I stopped, my friend told me that in order to "get to Him" I needed to surround myself with fellow Christians. Then reading the bible, it said I didn't have to....that I was not to follow others to a man-made building, but to go to my room and pray.
We each have our own path to walk. I agree with you.

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#24776 Feb 4, 2014
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
It may be my opinion, but it fits the context AND agrees with the vast majority of Biblical scholars and Christians.
That does not change the fact that your explanation makes NO sense in context.
I keep hoping you will present something that inspires me, but I think your anger and bitterness undermine it every time...
Oh really? Seeking inspiration? I can see why. All due respects, but you are one of the most uninspired people I have ever run across.

SMILE

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#24777 Feb 4, 2014
akopen wrote:
<quoted text>
Hi Lacon.
Not only do you get the Bible wrong but you get the Founding Fathers wrong too. You need to go back and read some original documents regarding what the Founding Fathers purpose was. And, please learn how to read the Bible. For you to make a statement that I don't seem to have read the Bible is purely your assumption. What you really mean to say is that no Christian denomination nor the Church thinks alike. What you really mean to say is that all Christianity must think and do as you do.
Lacon, if you can document your belief then do so but be aware that I am well read in the Bible and history, history of Christian thought and Judaism and I will document how I address your contention on biblical exegesis. Just keep in mind that your personal interpretation is not documentation. That is to say that no literal reading of the Bible is a documentation. You may begin with a premise but must end with documentation as to its interpretation. In the end, neither you nor I will agree but then we will respect each other's efforts to understand.
Hence, no one knows God and cannot speak for God.
No, I think he nailed it about our Founding Fathers. That's why you didn't try to document a rebuttal.

Question. Why is it possible to read many historical documents, and understand the vast majority, but when it comes to the Bible, you require 'documentation' to prove it says the exact opposite of what it seems to be saying?

At this point, you haven't established that no one can speak for God, but you have established that you don't, just as you claim above!
so how about Tucson AZ

Tucson, AZ

#24778 Feb 4, 2014
Let's see,, the old testament is called that for a reason.. old, out-dated
In the Aramaic language there was no word, nor in ancient Greek for gay, fag, homo, whatever. ALL THE BOOKS in the BIBLE are each and every one of them the word of man, and how he perceives something
Christ came because the old profits were false. And, he had but ONE commandment.
"Love ye one another as I have loved you." as is clammed by someone in some "good" book.
ARE YOU FOLLOWING HIS COMMANDMENT?
And did he (supposedly) say that he was as ALL men so that he may know them better..
So I see it as he was gay. He was also a parent, a lover, a whore monger.
GET OVER YOURSELVES,
how many churches turned away people, note that I said people whose sexual orientation was unknown who had AIDS, but by the word.. he moved about lepers
I was raised DEEP WATER BAPTIST and baptized in the Suwanee River (and the Catholics think they have dealt with guilt?). President of the BYF (Baptist Youth Fellowship) for 4 years running, Been ordained and I cast no stone, I have gone to Christ and been cleansed. AND I S**K dick. Can I count the proud members of Christianity that I have known in the "BIBLICAL" sense I have loved wo/men alike. I have saved as many souls as you are thinking I have corrupted. Men have a hunger for sex that women cant fulfill, a savagery of love making that no woman can understand. And it is WE WHO ARE THE SEED.
A woman whose child I treated/cared for was going to help me find God, and I willing went alone with her to a Pentecostal Sunday service. Where "Tongues" were spoken. When she asked what I thought of it (she was trying to convert me lol) I told her that I saw in her church that my lifestyle was very well represented in the congregation. She looked at each man differently then lol.
Call it what you will Buddha, Christ, God, Allah and EVERY war that was fought was in his (fill in) name.
How many men have lain on the battlefield crying out in pain, all in "His" name. My God didn't ask that men be in pain, he healed those in pain, not inflicted it.
And all he (fill in any religion) said was love ye one another as I have loved you.
Wont you be surprised to arrive at the Pearly Gates only to find a man in drag lol and that he found straight society the true sinners.
Read what you can find about Jonathan and David.
There is no HELL, you (the readers/writers) are the ones who create Hell, an omnipresent on this spinning planet.
Have you ever know the sheer joy of a bowel movement, so strong that you tingled from it.. You know you have, I might suggest you give it another try. And purge your heart.

Since: Jun 13

North Pole, AK

#24779 Feb 4, 2014
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
No, I think he nailed it about our Founding Fathers. That's why you didn't try to document a rebuttal.
Question. Why is it possible to read many historical documents, and understand the vast majority, but when it comes to the Bible, you require 'documentation' to prove it says the exact opposite of what it seems to be saying?
At this point, you haven't established that no one can speak for God, but you have established that you don't, just as you claim above!
The Nature of G-d
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/J...

KiMare, pay close attention to the last statement on this link.

Historical documents? Try the reason why Japan went to war with the United States. Are you suprised with your research? Be careful not to read into the facts as if your nationalism might be questioned or you might question your nationalism.

Personal opinions are just that, personal not, documented.

State your personal opinion about why Japan declared war on the US. Then document why Japan went to war with the US. Then ask yourself if your personal opinion was worth stating at all.

The same is applied to my claim that a literal reading of the Bible is your personal opinion. Ask yourself what the OT meaning of soul or spirit as written in modern Christian Bibles really mean as opposed to your personal opinion. Go back to Genesis 1:27 and define the word image instead of using your personal opinion that thinks the ancient Hebrew word really meant, likeness. What is the difference between image and likeness. Which meaning is the correct meaning? When you answer these questions you will have begun your documentation. If others have already done this for you, try to understand whether your research jives with theirs. If you can collaborate with other's interpretations then you are on the path to truth.

Given all that still, no interpretation is anything but man's perception.

If you have spoken directly with God then are you claiming to be more a god then Jesus? Jesus imparts what Judaism understands or cautions against when speaking of idols. Get it?

You can claim a "New Being" in Jesus but you still need to collaborate with Judaism to understand what Jesus and the meaning of the new being in Christ means. You cannot disagree with Jewish exegesis and still accept what Jesus taught. Jesus as the Christ represents that which Judaism maintains:

"Christianity maintains that G-d has one son; Judaism maintains that G-d has billions of sons and daughters. We are all G-d's children. The Talmud teaches that there are three participants in the formation of every human being: the mother and father, who provide the physical form, and G-d, who provides the soul, the personality, and the intelligence. It is said that one of G-d's greatest gifts to humanity is the knowledge that we are His children and created in His image." http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/J...

I don't speak for God when I say that you don't either. I simply say that your lack of documentation is your personal opinion. What quotes you use from the Bible neither correspond with OT documentation nor do you use the Bible to document your opinions. You simply quote the Bible thinking that everyone should think as you do in interpreting the Bible.

You just don't get it.

Did not Jesus indicate that about you in clarifying that parables were only meant for those that understood?

You don't understand.

Since: Jun 13

North Pole, AK

#24780 Feb 4, 2014
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
It may be my opinion, but it fits the context AND agrees with the vast majority of Biblical scholars and Christians.
That does not change the fact that your explanation makes NO sense in context.
I keep hoping you will present something that inspires me, but I think your anger and bitterness undermine it every time...
You keep claiming context but you fail miserably in understanding the context of most every biblical quote you present. Remember, if you don't get Genesis 1: 27 you don't get the context of the rest of the Christian Bible. You fit the bill. They did not get it and they still don't get it. Jesus got it and you still don't get it. Do I have to do a study for you on what Jesus got? He got it. By your not getting it you reject Jesus.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#24781 Feb 4, 2014
akopen wrote:
<quoted text>
The Nature of G-d
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/J...
KiMare, pay close attention to the last statement on this link.
Historical documents? Try the reason why Japan went to war with the United States. Are you suprised with your research? Be careful not to read into the facts as if your nationalism might be questioned or you might question your nationalism.
Personal opinions are just that, personal not, documented.
State your personal opinion about why Japan declared war on the US. Then document why Japan went to war with the US. Then ask yourself if your personal opinion was worth stating at all.
The same is applied to my claim that a literal reading of the Bible is your personal opinion. Ask yourself what the OT meaning of soul or spirit as written in modern Christian Bibles really mean as opposed to your personal opinion. Go back to Genesis 1:27 and define the word image instead of using your personal opinion that thinks the ancient Hebrew word really meant, likeness. What is the difference between image and likeness. Which meaning is the correct meaning? When you answer these questions you will have begun your documentation. If others have already done this for you, try to understand whether your research jives with theirs. If you can collaborate with other's interpretations then you are on the path to truth.
Given all that still, no interpretation is anything but man's perception.
If you have spoken directly with God then are you claiming to be more a god then Jesus? Jesus imparts what Judaism understands or cautions against when speaking of idols. Get it?
You can claim a "New Being" in Jesus but you still need to collaborate with Judaism to understand what Jesus and the meaning of the new being in Christ means. You cannot disagree with Jewish exegesis and still accept what Jesus taught. Jesus as the Christ represents that which Judaism maintains:
"Christianity maintains that G-d has one son; Judaism maintains that G-d has billions of sons and daughters. We are all G-d's children. The Talmud teaches that there are three participants in the formation of every human being: the mother and father, who provide the physical form, and G-d, who provides the soul, the personality, and the intelligence. It is said that one of G-d's greatest gifts to humanity is the knowledge that we are His children and created in His image." http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/J...
I don't speak for God when I say that you don't either. I simply say that your lack of documentation is your personal opinion. What quotes you use from the Bible neither correspond with OT documentation nor do you use the Bible to document your opinions. You simply quote the Bible thinking that everyone should think as you do in interpreting the Bible.
You just don't get it.
Did not Jesus indicate that about you in clarifying that parables were only meant for those that understood?
You don't understand.
Not sure what your post has to do with what I said.

First you know what God is saying in the Bible and now you know what Jesus meant with the parables. And everyone else is wrong.

Wow.

Smile.

Since: Jun 13

North Pole, AK

#24782 Feb 4, 2014
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
Not sure what your post has to do with what I said.
First you know what God is saying in the Bible and now you know what Jesus meant with the parables. And everyone else is wrong.
Wow.
Smile.
Going back to what you did say:
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
" No, I think he nailed it about our Founding Fathers. That's why you didn't try to document a rebuttal.
Question. Why is it possible to read many historical documents, and understand the vast majority, but when it comes to the Bible, you require 'documentation' to prove it says the exact opposite of what it seems to be saying?
At this point, you haven't established that no one can speak for God, but you have established that you don't, just as you claim above!"

Treaty of Tripoli, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Tripol... . Be careful how you comprehend this wiki, or what is being said. If you disagree with what the wiki says then present documentation contrary to what it says are the facts.

My points are:
1) My point is that you must document all that you read or you become the blind leading the blind.
2) As time moves on mankind learns that most of what it believed in early history is not proven wrong.
3) My third point had to do with your last statement about speaking for God. I used this link: http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/J... .

I addressed all your concerns. Now, with the Treaty of Tripoli, if you disagree with the wiki's interpretation then document your disagreement. If not, your opinion stands as a worthless, deliberately misleading and personal opinion. I could document more about the Founding Fathers but please, suffice it to say, using historical documents one must still be able to comprehend what it is that was being said. Same as with the Bible. You cannot just quote a passage and call it documentation. You cannot take that passage out of context. Context of the paragraph or the chapter let alone staying in context with the book and the Bible as a whole.

If you don't get Genesis 1: 27 then you won't get anything else in the Bible.

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#24785 Feb 4, 2014
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
First, I was responding to your claim about the location.
Second, you have no proof it never existed.
Third, you brought up the inner god, not me.
Fourth, FINALLY you got something right.
Smile.
The same circular reasoning. Since there is no tangible evidence of it's existence, and given the fact the myth is pure nonsense, no reasonable person would take that story literally saying that it must exist in the first place. So please fill me in. What is it you agree with?

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#24786 Feb 4, 2014
cory71 wrote:
<quoted text>
That would be your simple opinion, however misguided.
Remember, the Bible as a whole points to Jesus Christ and his mission to reconcile man with God. The verse you're looking for would be John 3:16.
That's what Christians have read into Hebrew Scripture. People of the Jewish faith disagree with such a premise.

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#24787 Feb 4, 2014
cory71 wrote:
<quoted text>
That would be your simple opinion, however misguided.
Remember, the Bible as a whole points to Jesus Christ and his mission to reconcile man with God. The verse you're looking for would be John 3:16.
A Sauline and gentile work.

Since: Apr 07

Location hidden

#24791 Feb 4, 2014
Something to ponder:

To get an objective idea of whether an action or behavior is moral or immoral, apply a test that relies on Kant's categorical imperative summed up in his famous dictum, "Act only according to that maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law."&#8232;&#823 2;

So, for example, to know whether stealing is right or wrong, ask yourself if you would prefer to live in a world in which everyone stole, or a world in which no one stole. Would it be a better world where everyone murdered, or no one murdered? A world in which everyone lied, or no one lied? A world in which everyone played music loud, or one where no one did? A world in which everyone cursed at you, or no one did? Etc.&#8232;&#8232;

Applying this test to homosexuality, would it be a better world if everyone were homosexual – and I don't mean bisexual, but exclusively homosexual – or one in which everyone was exclusively heterosexual? In the case of homosexuality, this would result in the extinction of mankind, and applying the principle universally, the extinction of all sexually reproducing forms of life. In the case of heterosexuality, life wouldn't be much different than it is right now.&#8232;&#8232;

According to this test, homosexuality is clearly wrong behavior and therefore, immoral.

Since: Jun 13

North Pole, AK

#24793 Feb 4, 2014
cory71 wrote:
<quoted text>
That would be your simple opinion, however misguided.
Genesis 1: 27,28 I will combine with Genesis 5:2. Verses 27, 28 beside the point of establishing creation, states that man was created in God's image. Now, if you can give me reference to other biblical passages that define,“image of God,” I'd be very happy and excited to follow up on them. Since I am not aware of such defining scripture, I will use Paul Tillich's take on the image of God. From the J narrative and story form of passages prior to chapter 5 comes the P narrative with chapter 5 and a subtle account of the genealogy of Adam to Noah. Where J's story of creating Adam in God's image P's purpose is to begin by saying that Adam begets a son in his own image (verse 3.) This image is very important in both J's narrative and P's but what of this importance, from the image of God to the image of Adam? We are talking about the creation of man and accordingly man is the “telos of creation(or, the end of; the purpose of, the goal of, creation).” What complicates the defining of “the image of God” is that two terms were used, imago and similitudo. The image of God is as controverial as is the many definitions of Christian Doctrine. Imago points to the physical being of man and similitudo points to a “special divine gift, donum superadditum, giving Adam the power of adhering to God.” Protestanism rejects this “ontological dualism” between nature and supranature. I'll not go any deeper into the differences of Catholicism and Protestanism but I will state the differences are now addressed with the interpretation of “grace.” Tillich says,“If grace is supranatural substance, the Catholic position is consistent. If it is forgiveness in the center of one's personality, the Protestant position is necessary.” Two problems remain within Protestanism, namely the meaning of the “image of God” and the nature of “man's created goodness.” Certainly, man can have communion with God because of having been created in “the image of God” but this does not define “the image of God.” What is so profound is Tillich's next statement about the image of man,“Man is the image of God because his logos is analogous to the divine logos, so that the divine logos can appear as man without destroying the humanity of man.” Early theologians would attribute to Adam all the perfections usually attributed to Christ and this made the fall unintelligable. Modern theology attributes Adam to a “dreamy innocence, a stage of infancy before contest and decision,” making the “original state” of man understandable. Again, Tillich opens this discussion now towards Original Sin:“The goodness of man's created nature is that he is given the possibility and necessity of actualizing himself and of becoming independent by his self-actualization, in spite of the estrangement unavoidably connected with it.”“The verb “was” presupposes actualization in time.” So, this leads to the question of Original Sin,“Was it caused by man or was it with man as a product of God's creation?” Was man's creation, man's estrangement from God? Man created in a temporal world where God is supposedly in a spiritual realm. How does man regain this connection after the creation, an estrangement from his Creator?

Since: Jun 13

North Pole, AK

#24794 Feb 4, 2014
cory71 wrote:
<quoted text>
Your statement and opinion is bigoted and ignorant.
Jesus was born in a Jewish home and grew up in a Jewish culture... what would that fact dictate?
Countless Jews have come to Jesus Christ in faith and are Christians.
Two thousand years later and over 30,000 Christian denominations, each with their own constitution and you, Cory, call a Jewish thinking bigoted and ignorant? How so? Jewish thinking is bigoted if by definition it is directed after their own religion, not Christianity's. You are the bigot forsaking the true Christian beginning.

Note that Jesus did not establish Christianity, the Apostles did and 2000 years of discourse.

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 Indonesia court rejects bid to outlaw extramari... 4 min Francis 1
Maybe god is gay! (Dec '09) 16 min June VanDerMark 13,711
News Arlington Receives "All-Star" Rating for LGBTQ ... 24 min The Great Satan 17
News What would Jesus say about same-sex marriage? (Jul '15) 24 min positronium 15,001
Jade's Pork Shack 1 hr Jerome 3
News Former OKC Mayor blames homosexuality for moral... 1 hr Kirk is OK 145
News Unhinged pastor tells "gay world" to "go to a M... 2 hr Europhobia 3
News Ten Commandments judge faces runoff in Alabama ... 7 hr spud 364
News Colo. gay discrimination alleged over wedding cake (Jun '13) 9 hr June VanDerMark 58,465
The Spectrum Cafe (Dec '07) 22 hr GodSmacked 26,930
More from around the web