Homosexuality and the Bible

Homosexuality and the Bible

There are 36058 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 11

Location hidden

#25693 Feb 24, 2014
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
That is one of your best reasoned responses.
Smirk.
Medical authorities agree with the Biblical Paul?

Really? What an idiotic statement. How did you arrive at this far fetched opinion?

Since: Apr 07

Location hidden

#25694 Feb 24, 2014
snyper wrote:
<quoted text>
Regarding the Sauline entries, then, let's begin with the issues raised by this analyst's easy-to-read summary ...
http://worldandi.com/newhome/public/2004/apri...
-
Oh! You've decided to be civl now. I commend you for that.

I read the article you linked to, and I would give it credibility if not for one thing: the claim of revelation made by Paul. That is, if the writings of Paul were simply human, philosophical treatises, then yes, one could attribute Platonic influence to his writings. However, Paul's claim is that of receiving direct revelations from Christ, like the prophets of the OT, so his writings qualify as revelations and not as philosophical theses.

Since: Apr 07

Location hidden

#25695 Feb 24, 2014
akopen wrote:
<quoted text>
<quoted text>
Charlie, you say you won't take his word for it and yet you will not take his documentation for it. You make no sense whatsoever.
First you say that it does not matter what the Bible says and then you say that it does. Which is it Charlie?
-
No, you've got that wrong: It does not matter what you say, not what the Bible says. It does not matter whether you say that homosexuality is a sin or not, whether it is an abomination or abhorrent, when the effect is the same as sin.

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#25696 Feb 24, 2014
Charlie Feather wrote:
<quoted text>-
Oh! You've decided to be civl now. I commend you for that.
I read the article you linked to, and I would give it credibility if not for one thing: the claim of revelation made by Paul. That is, if the writings of Paul were simply human, philosophical treatises, then yes, one could attribute Platonic influence to his writings. However, Paul's claim is that of receiving direct revelations from Christ, like the prophets of the OT, so his writings qualify as revelations and not as philosophical theses.
That's circular reasoning. I have walked down town and heard guys claiming to have a direct pipe line to God. So you would accept Paul's word that he had a direct link to God, even though he contradicts the teachings of Jesus. What did Jesus say about divorce? "Moses gave you that law," meaning it was a law written by man and attributed to Moses. Jesus called the Law of Moses burdensome. You don't really get the Bible do you Charlie.

Since: Apr 07

Location hidden

#25697 Feb 24, 2014
WasteWater wrote:
<quoted text>
That's circular reasoning. I have walked down town and heard guys claiming to have a direct pipe line to God. So you would accept Paul's word that he had a direct link to God, even though he contradicts the teachings of Jesus. What did Jesus say about divorce? "Moses gave you that law," meaning it was a law written by man and attributed to Moses. Jesus called the Law of Moses burdensome. You don't really get the Bible do you Charlie.
-
I do get much of it. However, I see that you are wrong because you reason from incorrect premises.

I, too, have known people who claim that God speaks directly to them, and this would sometimes lead to hilarious results if it weren't so tragic.

But, Paul's' claims are qualitatively different from the little voices we might sometimes hear in our heads. His "Road to Damascus" experience was witnessed by others; he was struck blind for three days; others were recipients of visions that contributed to Paul's conversion, etc. It was a far more elaborate sequence of events than mere voices in one's head. He continued to have visions and revelations like that of a prophet of old.

I have never seen any teaching of Paul that contradicted the teaching of Jesus. They are complementary.

"Moses gave you that law," does not mean it was a law written by man and attributed to Moses. You have your own private interpretation of scripture, something the Bible warns us about.

Since: Apr 07

Location hidden

#25698 Feb 24, 2014
akopen wrote:
<quoted text>
Thanks, Henry. There is this cultural disgust with a man doing a man as if a man was doing a woman. That disgust was about treating another man like a woman. Many historical instances relate to this concern. You are correct in that and from that they, modern biblical translators get, "Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is an abomination.
When in fact, it say "with male" and "beds of woman." Not to mention that abomination is an interpretation of "abhorrence." Where abhorrence means disgust, abomination takes on its own meaning, sin against God; which it is not what was said.
Good point.
-
Abhorrence, abomination, disgust……What difference does it make. the punishment for homosexual behavior is the same: Death by execution, and in Christian doctrine, eternal damnation.

Since: Apr 07

Location hidden

#25699 Feb 24, 2014
WasteWater wrote:
<quoted text>
I'm not attacking anyone good Charlie. You are an evil abusive person.
-
Jesus says not to judge, and here you are judging! Follow your own admonitions, hypocrite and sinner!

Since: Jun 13

Anchorage, AK

#25700 Feb 24, 2014
Charlie Feather wrote:
<quoted text>-
No, you've got that wrong: It does not matter what you say, not what the Bible says. It does not matter whether you say that homosexuality is a sin or not, whether it is an abomination or abhorrent, when the effect is the same as sin.
Define sin!

Since: Apr 07

Location hidden

#25701 Feb 24, 2014
akopen wrote:
<quoted text>
"Across the board in sexual matters, the Bible calls for mutual repect, caring and responsible sharing--in a loaded word, love. The violation of these, but not sex in general, is what the Bible condemns. The lesson in 1 Corinthians 6:9 and 1 Timothy 1:10 is that this principle applies equally to hetero- and homosexuality." What the Bible Really Says About Homosexuality, Daniel A. Helminiak, p. 115.
-
Has Daniel A. Helminiak documented his opinion? Maybe, maybe not. He studied the subject and came to his own conclusions, just like we all have.

Do you think that by citing the opinion of one person makes your opinion any better?

You have developed a very elaborate apology of homosexuality based on the fallacy 'Appeal to Authority'. You've been busted on this, and might try another tack.
-
The words that are so obscure that we can only guess what they mean are key to this discussion. What was really being talked about was prostitution within pagan temples. Married men going to the temple to satisfy their sexual needs whether, hetero- or homosexual. Young boys were being taken off the streets and made to prostitute themselves for the temple (pedophilia). This became the main emphasis of the Early Church Fathers, pedophilia.
-
Well, if we can only guess at the meaning of these obscure words, that means that anyone's opinion is as good as anyone else's.

There is no indication whatsoever in the context of Leviticus 18::22 and 20:13 that temple prostitution was in mind. Neither in Romans 1:24-27, I Cor. 6:9, 10, I Timothy 1:10 and Jude 7 does it indicate that temple prostitution and idolatry were the object of condemnation or exclusively so.

An objective reading of these scriptures plainly shows you to be wrong. Now, you might want to argue that the many, many translations in many, many languages are, themselves, wrong, but I would like you to produce a generally accepted Biblical translation that goes with your hypothesis.

Really, your view is marginal and a mere curiosity. It's like arguing that Jesus never existed, or that the earth is flat.

Since: Apr 07

Location hidden

#25702 Feb 24, 2014
akopen wrote:
<quoted text>
Define sin!
-
Oh! Weren't we defining sin as 'apple pie'? Oh! That's your definition! Excuse me.

Sin is whatever it is that gets you sent to Hell. Generally speaking.

Since: Apr 07

Location hidden

#25703 Feb 24, 2014
There is no indication whatsoever in the context of Leviticus 18::22 and 20:13 that temple prostitution was in mind. Neither in Romans 1:24-27, I Cor. 6:9, 10, I Timothy 1:10 and Jude 7 does it indicate that temple prostitution and idolatry were exclusively the object of condemnation. Other behaviors were included.

Since: Jun 13

Anchorage, AK

#25704 Feb 24, 2014
Charlie Feather wrote:
<quoted text>-
Abhorrence, abomination, disgust……What difference does it make. the punishment for homosexual behavior is the same: Death by execution, and in Christian doctrine, eternal damnation.
One verse in Leviticus calls for the punishment of death and that was the legislation of the Israelites. Christian doctrine? I suppose but, Catholicism does not claim homosexuality is a sin. Why? Because the Bible does not say it is a sin.! Your doctrine might call it a sin and punishable by eternal damnation but then that becomes the exception. Doesn't it? Personal revelation. If it does not fit Christology then it is not a dependent revelation. How many different ways does Christianity define homosexuality? If there is a difference then to whom do we credit the revelation? Funny, thought that the revelation comes to us from God.

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#25705 Feb 24, 2014
Charlie Feather wrote:
<quoted text>-
I do get much of it. However, I see that you are wrong because you reason from incorrect premises.
I, too, have known people who claim that God speaks directly to them, and this would sometimes lead to hilarious results if it weren't so tragic.
But, Paul's' claims are qualitatively different from the little voices we might sometimes hear in our heads. His "Road to Damascus" experience was witnessed by others; he was struck blind for three days; others were recipients of visions that contributed to Paul's conversion, etc. It was a far more elaborate sequence of events than mere voices in one's head. He continued to have visions and revelations like that of a prophet of old.
I have never seen any teaching of Paul that contradicted the teaching of Jesus. They are complementary.
"Moses gave you that law," does not mean it was a law written by man and attributed to Moses. You have your own private interpretation of scripture, something the Bible warns us about.
You are the one coming from false premises.

Prove that God spoke to anyone, using readily verifiable, tangible, non-ontological evidence. Inspiration is simply the creative process possibly driven by the Holy Spirit in every individual. Paul's letters are just that. They are letters written in response to other letters which are unavailable. Sometimes Paul is spot on, often he is way off. No, Paul is just the same as the little voices, as is the rest of the Bible. Your explanation is an excellent example of circular reasoning.

Let me paraphrase it. We start with the question, are Paul's Biblical contributions directly inspired by God? Yes they are because Paul says so.

You must be kidding me.

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#25706 Feb 24, 2014
Charlie Feather wrote:
There is no indication whatsoever in the context of Leviticus 18::22 and 20:13 that temple prostitution was in mind. Neither in Romans 1:24-27, I Cor. 6:9, 10, I Timothy 1:10 and Jude 7 does it indicate that temple prostitution and idolatry were exclusively the object of condemnation. Other behaviors were included.
Wrong again Charlie. There were no chapter and verse distinctions in any of the Bible prior to the Middle Ages. Here is the preceding passage.

21 “‘Do not give any of your children to be sacrificed to Molek, for you must not profane the name of your God. I am the Lord.

This passage is about Canaanite ritual and idol worship. What's more, Leviticus was written over 500 years after Moses and attributed too him. It is obviously some sort of nationalistic ethical code written by the high priests. It has nothing to do with what Jesus preached in the Gospels. You sure are stuck on the clobber passages. Does it make you feel really good to clobber other people like this? I have clobbered you numerous times with much more relevant Bible passages. How did it feel Charlie?

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#25707 Feb 24, 2014
Charlie Feather wrote:
<quoted text>-
Jesus says not to judge, and here you are judging! Follow your own admonitions, hypocrite and sinner!
Yea, the Bible also says what goes around comes around doesn't it,

How does that make you feel Charlie?

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#25708 Feb 24, 2014
Jim wrote:
Well, not a Biblical expert in any way, but had a good friend in high school with “sexual issues”. He was absolutely the nicest guy I have ever known, couldn’t have been more selfless or more caring. I will never forget holding him, and stroking his back as he sobbed in my arms about how he prayed every night to wake up straight. I was honored to be the only straight person he confided in, and thought I had gotten through to him that it wasn’t important who he feel in love with, just that he loved someone with all his heart. He couldn’t accept who he was due to his Evangelical upbringing. I know for a fact that he never acted on his impulses, and I also know for a fact that he believed suicide to be as great a sin as homosexuality. Didn’t stop him from taking his own life however. The world is a shallower place without Kenny, and frankly I blame Evangelicals for his death. RIP my friend. Sadly, his family has no idea why he killed himself.
Thank you for that.

You were a good friend.

I'm honored to have read your story.

Ever consider these guys? plag.org Your story would help so many!

“It's Time. . .”

Since: Jun 13

New Holland

#25709 Feb 24, 2014
Jim wrote:
Well, not a Biblical expert in any way, but had a good friend in high school with “sexual issues”. He was absolutely the nicest guy I have ever known, couldn’t have been more selfless or more caring. I will never forget holding him, and stroking his back as he sobbed in my arms about how he prayed every night to wake up straight. I was honored to be the only straight person he confided in, and thought I had gotten through to him that it wasn’t important who he feel in love with, just that he loved someone with all his heart. He couldn’t accept who he was due to his Evangelical upbringing. I know for a fact that he never acted on his impulses, and I also know for a fact that he believed suicide to be as great a sin as homosexuality. Didn’t stop him from taking his own life however. The world is a shallower place without Kenny, and frankly I blame Evangelicals for his death. RIP my friend. Sadly, his family has no idea why he killed himself.
Now that is a sad story. I'm sorry about your friend.

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#25710 Feb 24, 2014
Charlie Feather wrote:
<quoted text>-
Oh! You've decided to be civl now. I commend you for that.
I read the article you linked to, and I would give it credibility if not for one thing: the claim of revelation made by Paul. That is, if the writings of Paul were simply human, philosophical treatises, then yes, one could attribute Platonic influence to his writings. However, Paul's claim is that of receiving direct revelations from Christ, like the prophets of the OT, so his writings qualify as revelations and not as philosophical theses.
Based solely upon his claims and those of his adherents?

Are you asserting that Plato, the Stoics, and Philo of Alexandria were similarly "inspired"?

Think very carefully before answering.

Since: Jun 13

Anchorage, AK

#25711 Feb 24, 2014
Charlie Feather wrote:
<quoted text>
-
Has Daniel A. Helminiak documented his opinion? Maybe, maybe not. He studied the subject and came to his own conclusions, just like we all have.
Do you think that by citing the opinion of one person makes your opinion any better?
You have developed a very elaborate apology of homosexuality based on the fallacy 'Appeal to Authority'. You've been busted on this, and might try another tack.
-
<quoted text>-
Well, if we can only guess at the meaning of these obscure words, that means that anyone's opinion is as good as anyone else's.
There is no indication whatsoever in the context of Leviticus 18::22 and 20:13 that temple prostitution was in mind. Neither in Romans 1:24-27, I Cor. 6:9, 10, I Timothy 1:10 and Jude 7 does it indicate that temple prostitution and idolatry were the object of condemnation or exclusively so.
An objective reading of these scriptures plainly shows you to be wrong. Now, you might want to argue that the many, many translations in many, many languages are, themselves, wrong, but I would like you to produce a generally accepted Biblical translation that goes with your hypothesis.
Really, your view is marginal and a mere curiosity. It's like arguing that Jesus never existed, or that the earth is flat.
Ok, Charlie, let us consider documenting Jude 7. Are you ready or do you need another lifetime? I can wait. For now I'm going to document Jude 7. Note that this is not my opinion. Taking from the New American Bible, NAB.

Jude 7; Likewise, Sodom, Gomorrah, and the surrounding towns, which, in the same manner as they, indulged in sexual promiscuity and practiced unnatural vice,* serve as an example by undergoing a punishment of eternal fire.g

The "g" at the end of the passage is biblical references to Jude 7.

g.[7] Dt 29:22–24; Mt 25:41; 2 Thes 1:8–9; 2 Pt 2:6; 3:7.

The asterisk after "vice" is a footnote.

*[7] Practiced unnatural vice: literally,“went after alien flesh.” This example derives from Gn 19:1–25, especially 4–11, when the townsmen of Sodom violated both hospitality and morality by demanding that Lot’s two visitors (really messengers of Yahweh) be handed over to them so that they could abuse them sexually. Unnatural vice: this refers to the desire for intimacies by human beings with angels (the reverse of the example in Jude 6). Sodom (whence “sodomy”) and Gomorrah became proverbial as object lessons for God’s punishment on sin (Is 1:9; Jer 50:40; Am 4:11; Mt 10:15; 2 Pt 2:6).

Now note that the footnote immediately jumps into defining "unnatural vice." Not my opinion but documenting Jude 7. "Unnatural vice" is then defined as human desires to have intimacies with angels. Verse 6 is documented by the Book of Enoch.

Now, the last sentence of the footnote mentions sodomy as the "proverbial" "object lesson" associated with God's punishment. Proverbial as in "commonly spoken" or, as in what Christianity commonly, now speaks of as homosexuality.

Now, my opinion. Sodomy, as the proverbial "object lesson" must fall within Christian teaching, doctrine. This does not mean that the Bible spoke of the sin of Sodom to be homosexuality for, Ezekiel 16; 49 did not list withing the sins of Sodom, homosexuality. There is no other passage that defines the sin of Sodom in the Bible. There are other passages that uses Genesis 19, Sodom and Gomorrah, reflecting Ezekiel but none reflects this sin of Sodom as is condemned by a sin of homosexuality.

You must infer that by opinion, without documentation it remains just opinion.

The Church struggles with condemning homosexuality as does all of Christianity. They do so because they got side tracked instead of depending on sound documentation. They became moralistic, judgemental. Instead of being loving, charitable. They, the Church and Christianity, lost their way because they felt that their teaching would never be questioned.

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#25712 Feb 24, 2014
Charlie Feather wrote:
<quoted text>-
I do get much of it. However, I see that you are wrong because you reason from incorrect premises.
I, too, have known people who claim that God speaks directly to them, and this would sometimes lead to hilarious results if it weren't so tragic.
But, Paul's' claims are qualitatively different from the little voices we might sometimes hear in our heads. His "Road to Damascus" experience was witnessed by others; he was struck blind for three days; others were recipients of visions that contributed to Paul's conversion, etc. It was a far more elaborate sequence of events than mere voices in one's head. He continued to have visions and revelations like that of a prophet of old.
I have never seen any teaching of Paul that contradicted the teaching of Jesus. They are complementary.
"Moses gave you that law," does not mean it was a law written by man and attributed to Moses. You have your own private interpretation of scripture, something the Bible warns us about.
The ONLY account attesting to his roadtrip experience is by his gentile Greek PR man, Luke.

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 How Franklin Graham took the reins from his leg... 1 hr youll shoot your ... 6
News 'Teen Mom 2's' David Eason fired by MTV after a... 2 hr Milton 7
News Court rules California bakeries may REFUSE to d... 3 hr Wondering 52
News The Latest: Gay pride parade backers eye suit o... 3 hr Wondering 4
News Lebanese State Security Member Arrested on Susp... 3 hr Myron 2
News Jeremy Corbyn: Same-sex sex education should be... 3 hr Myron 1
News This homophobic magistrate was just paid $325,0... 3 hr Wondering 37
The Spectrum Cafe (Dec '07) 16 hr GodSmacked 27,404
News Man charged with threatening Riverview church o... 16 hr Rose_NoHo 67
More from around the web