Homosexuality and the Bible

Homosexuality and the Bible

There are 34844 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: Mar 14

Location hidden

#26433 Mar 28, 2014
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>You assert that David disqualifies the sacrifices. A lie I exposed.

You then divert and express your antisemitism.

Concluding with another lie.

Smile.
I exposed a lie too.....Yours

Smile, triple Nipple

Since: Jun 13

Anchorage, AK

#26434 Mar 28, 2014
Joe DeCaro wrote:
from smh:
"Similarly one could argue that nowhere in the Gospels does Jesus condemn homosexuality. Perhaps Jesus was not concerned about it? This argument is not strong for Jesus does not mention a range of other sins so his pronouncements on sin could not be assumed to be exhaustive."

For every word Jesus has about, not sin as much as a transgression, what is being addressed is the root, the basic concept of what we call sin. This then becomes the basis of Jesus' teachings. As a Jew Jesus was interested in justice. As a Jew Jesus was interested in the time spent on earth, that quality of life. Everything in the Bible is about relationships. Matthew 19 is not about marriage but it is about justice for woman. Modern translations call this emphasis concerning women, divorce. If a woman was thrown out on the street (and this is a more accurate paraphrase of the modern translation using divorce) that woman was left desolate, without any hope that a man would take care of her, it left her with no other way to support herself other than prostitution. The sin here was the divorce but the basic concept of that sin was transgression, injustice.

“Good day to you!”

Since: Oct 08

Earth

#26435 Mar 28, 2014
akopen wrote:
<quoted text>
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/hermeneutic...
http://www.oxfordbibliographies.com/view/docu...
Your explanation of hermeneutics emphasizes interpretation first and foremost and as such interpretation is not hermeneutics. Hermeneutics are necessary to interpret Scripture. There must be tools to decide how to interpret Scripture. These tools must be standard and basic to all that interpret Scripture. In our modern interpretation of the Bible there are too many that develop their own hermeneutics so as to get the interpretation they seek. Whether that means they ignore certain theologies or Christian thought over 2000 years, it all amounts to Christianity's inability to agree on Christ's teaching. And yet, there was a basic understanding. Even those that declare their faith is what the Early Church was about they too decide how to interpret Scripture. It just does not work that way.
Hermeneutics that I employ:
Ancient Hebrew
Ancient Greek
Medieval Latin
Culture
Biblical references
Context of passages
Meaning authors conveyed backed up by how they used similar phrases and words
Christian Thought (history)
Jewish Exegesis
Catholic Exegesis
Origninal Latin documents
Systematic Theology
Example:
Word studies in ancient languages. What do these words mean in the Bible?-marriage, wife, husband, adultery, fornication, sexual immorality, homosexuality, sodomy, etc.
For instance, marriage is not a word in the ancient Hebrew language and should never been translated marriage even if modern Christianity has come to accept marriage as a doctrine, which it is and not a precept of God.
Hermeneutics is a word study, it is the context in which a word is used, it is about what the author most likely meant by using certain words. Hermeneutics are the tools to keep everyone speaking about the same thing and not allowing others to decide that God speaks differently than what the basics of Christianity teaches. This is an impossibility since everyone has their own hermeneutics that they go by. Hermeneutics is more than what I've described to you. Follow the links above to get a better understanding of hermeneutics.
To be sure. Hermeneutics is not interpretation but leads to interpretation.
When you use hermeneutics for a single Biblical sentence, you have to consider each word to see if it might have more than one meaning when used and how it's used for each meaning. That process is interpretation. Interpreting/examining words, sentences and phrases leads to a final interpretation. Hermeneutics is the process of making interpretations to lead one to an over all interpretation of what one studied to understand it's meaning. And we'll agree to disagree there.

“Good day to you!”

Since: Oct 08

Earth

#26436 Mar 28, 2014
akopen wrote:
<quoted text>
Careful when you say you agree with something that I say when in fact I did not say that. Your honor is at stake when you put words in another person's mouth. I did not say what you said I said about the circular argument around hermeneutics and interpretation.
In Algebra or Geometry one uses the rules and theorems to come up with an answer. The same is true with biblical interpretation, hermeneutics are the tools necessary to understand what the Bible says. This process is not the interpretation but lends to a conclusion. To interpret scripture then is to apply the knowledge one gets from research. That will change as no one knows God. As circular as this all may seem it remains that no finite man will know an infinite God.
Circular reasoning....a logical fallacy in which the reasoner begins with what they are trying to end with.
You did that more than once in trying to prove hermeneutics is not an interpretation when it obviously is.

You stated....

"Even then, the system still is a circular argument."

I responded but not to the meaning you stated, but to your usage of the phrase 'circular argument.' I made no claim you said something you didn't.

"I do agree it's a circular argument for you to try and show hermeneutics is actually different than interpreting when they're actually one and the same as they both use the same principles of thought to found theories."

I took the following from this link.... http://www.bing.com/search...
It was the first explanation given for what hermeneutics is under each link.

Hermeneutics / h &#604;r m &#601; &#712; n j u&#720; t &#618; k s / is the theory of text interpretation
hermeneutics (&#716;h&#604;&#72 0;m&#618;&#712;nju &#720;t&#618;ks)—n: 1. the science of interpretation
hermeneutics, the study of the general principles of biblical interpretation.
Biblical hermeneutics is the study of the principles of interpretation concerning the books of the Bible.
The term hermeneutics covers both the first order art and the second order theory of understanding and interpretation
her·me·neu·tics (hûr&#8242;m&#601;-no &#773;o&#773;&#824 2;t&#301;ks,-nyo&#773; o&#773;&#8242;-) n.(used with a sing. or pl. verb) The theory and methodology of interpretation,
Definition of HERMENEUTIC. 1. plural but sing or plural in constr: the study of the methodological principles of interpretation (as of the Bible)

Summery.....hermeneutics is the science of interpretation. Or, the science of interpretation is hermeneutics.

“Good day to you!”

Since: Oct 08

Earth

#26437 Mar 28, 2014
akopen wrote:
akopen
So you say that the hierarchy of the Early Church is dependant on the NT.
Let's step back and 'interpret' the statement you made that began this discussion. You see, according to how you stated it, the hierarchy of the early church can't be dependent on the NT as the NT didn't exist when the early church was existing. So your statement as it's written is incorrect. State it again will you?

“=”

Since: Oct 07

Appleton WI

#26438 Mar 28, 2014

Since: Jun 13

Anchorage, AK

#26439 Mar 28, 2014
No Surprise wrote:
<quoted text>
When you use hermeneutics for a single Biblical sentence, you have to consider each word to see if it might have more than one meaning when used and how it's used for each meaning. That process is interpretation. Interpreting/examining words, sentences and phrases leads to a final interpretation. Hermeneutics is the process of making interpretations to lead one to an over all interpretation of what one studied to understand it's meaning. And we'll agree to disagree there.
Not only will we have to agree to disagree your disagreement are with other scholars too.

Hermeneutics are not an interpretation. Hermeneutics being many tools and interpretation is putting all those tools together.

Now, I've been rather busy with my Father's care but I have your comments on homosexuality firmly on my schedule of to do things.

That will be the test of hermeneutics. I will define and then interpret.

Since: Jun 13

Anchorage, AK

#26440 Mar 28, 2014
No Surprise wrote:
<quoted text>
Circular reasoning....a logical fallacy in which the reasoner begins with what they are trying to end with.
You did that more than once in trying to prove hermeneutics is not an interpretation when it obviously is.
You stated....
"Even then, the system still is a circular argument."
I responded but not to the meaning you stated, but to your usage of the phrase 'circular argument.' I made no claim you said something you didn't.
"I do agree it's a circular argument for you to try and show hermeneutics is actually different than interpreting when they're actually one and the same as they both use the same principles of thought to found theories."
I took the following from this link.... http://www.bing.com/search...
It was the first explanation given for what hermeneutics is under each link.
Hermeneutics / h &#604;r m &#601; &#712; n j u&#720; t &#618; k s / is the theory of text interpretation
hermeneutics (&#716;h&#604;&#72 0;m&#618;&#712;nju &#720;t&#618;ks)—n: 1. the science of interpretation
hermeneutics, the study of the general principles of biblical interpretation.
Biblical hermeneutics is the study of the principles of interpretation concerning the books of the Bible.
The term hermeneutics covers both the first order art and the second order theory of understanding and interpretation
her·me·neu·tics (hûr&#8242;m&#601;-no &#773;o&#773;&#824 2;t&#301;ks,-nyo&#773; o&#773;&#8242;-) n.(used with a sing. or pl. verb) The theory and methodology of interpretation,
Definition of HERMENEUTIC. 1. plural but sing or plural in constr: the study of the methodological principles of interpretation (as of the Bible)
Summery.....hermeneutics is the science of interpretation. Or, the science of interpretation is hermeneutics.
You cling to interpretation as if it comes before hermeneutics. Your last definition says it all.

So, get on with an interpretation. I will tackle your comments on homosexuality. Be prepared to be specific on the tools you use to interpret what the Bible says about homosexuality.

Since: Jun 13

Anchorage, AK

#26441 Mar 28, 2014
No Surprise wrote:
<quoted text>
Let's step back and 'interpret' the statement you made that began this discussion. You see, according to how you stated it, the hierarchy of the early church can't be dependent on the NT as the NT didn't exist when the early church was existing. So your statement as it's written is incorrect. State it again will you?


You got it right. I provided my logic with the link: http://www.jeremybouma.com/the-gospel-accordi... .

"As Tillich insists, Christianity began not when Jesus was born, but the moment one of his followers was driven to say to the man “Jesus,”“Thou, art the Christ.”4 He goes on to argue that as long as people maintain this assertion—that Jesus is the Christ—Christianity will continue as a religion. This is the case because Christianity has two sides: the fact “Jesus of Nazareth,” and this fact’s reception by those who received him as the Christ.5 Tillich reflects Bultmann’s demythologizing effort6 by differentiating between the Jesus of Fact and the Jesus of Faith:“Jesus as the Christ is both a historical fact and a subject of believing reception. One cannot speak the truth about the event on which Christianity is based without asserting both sides.”7"

Are you avoiding my documentation?

I also presented documentation on hermeneutics too. Did you read those links?

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#26442 Mar 28, 2014
akopen wrote:
Joe DeCaro wrote:
from smh:
"Similarly one could argue that nowhere in the Gospels does Jesus condemn homosexuality. Perhaps Jesus was not concerned about it? This argument is not strong for Jesus does not mention a range of other sins so his pronouncements on sin could not be assumed to be exhaustive."
For every word Jesus has about, not sin as much as a transgression, what is being addressed is the root, the basic concept of what we call sin. This then becomes the basis of Jesus' teachings. As a Jew Jesus was interested in justice. As a Jew Jesus was interested in the time spent on earth, that quality of life. Everything in the Bible is about relationships. Matthew 19 is not about marriage but it is about justice for woman. Modern translations call this emphasis concerning women, divorce. If a woman was thrown out on the street (and this is a more accurate paraphrase of the modern translation using divorce) that woman was left desolate, without any hope that a man would take care of her, it left her with no other way to support herself other than prostitution. The sin here was the divorce but the basic concept of that sin was transgression, injustice.
Jesus did mention homosexuality. "Eunuchs born that way".

Since: Mar 14

Location hidden

#26443 Mar 28, 2014
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>Jesus did mention homosexuality. "Eunuchs born that way".
Funny Jesus didn't mention
Hermaphrodites. Ones that say
they have 3 nipples and are a mutant
barbarians.Must of "slipped"his mind.

Since: Jun 13

Anchorage, AK

#26444 Mar 28, 2014
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
Jesus did mention homosexuality. "Eunuchs born that way".
Go back to Sunday School KiMare.

“Good day to you!”

Since: Oct 08

Earth

#26445 Mar 28, 2014
snyper wrote:
<quoted text>
Grab your microwave popcorn and let's review ...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v =tddCNY6U77YXX
Yeshua did NOT create a "new religion", but cleared away cultural detritus and other obstacles to living within the one that already existed.
I agree. But he in turn began a new religion that was very different than the old one. He replaced the reigning power of the Sadducees and Pharisees with a quorum of twelve men. He renewed the ten commandments. I believe he reestablished what once was before Noah. So yes, compared to what was, he did establish a new religion. It's why his own people rejected his message as a farce of a mad man and killed him. He had something new and different and it scared his people. So by instinct they rejected it. And him.

“Good day to you!”

Since: Oct 08

Earth

#26446 Mar 28, 2014
snyper wrote:
<quoted text>
They don't. They just co-opted the term.
You should be well familiar with that, even if you fail to recognize it.
They do. And you're being elusive. What is your religion/group/following that infuses the Melchizedek priesthood?

“Good day to you!”

Since: Oct 08

Earth

#26447 Mar 28, 2014
akopen wrote:
<quoted text>
You really need to learn how to read. I did not say, "Where did you get that the apostles on their own after the death of Jesus decided that they would begin a church after his teaching?" I said, "The truth is that the Apostles began the Early Church, not Jesus." I also said, "And it began because they wanted to preserve the teaching of their mentor." That statement then infers that their efforts to hang on to Jesus' teaching became the Early Church.
You wrote....

"The truth is that the Apostles began the Early Church, not Jesus." I also said, "And it began because they wanted to preserve the teaching of their mentor."

I replied....

"Where did you get that the apostles on their own after the death of Jesus decided that they would begin a church after his teaching?"

I summarized what you said accurately. So lets take apart what you said to show my reply was accurate.
You stated the early church was began by the apostles, not Jesus. That means from what you claim that the apostles after the death of Jesus organized and shaped the early church.
I asked where did you get that the apostles after the death of Jesus began the early church. That is what you meant/said. Prove it's not what you meant/said.
The only way you can prove that's not what you meant/said is to now claim that the apostles while Jesus was alive(and without his help)formed the early church.
Maybe you need to do a redo on what it means to summarize what someone else has said? If my summation was incorrect it's up to you to correct me. All you did was repeat what you said earlier that I correctly summarized.
That was that you believe the apostles after Jesus's death formed/began/brought to be the early church. And I said that in my summery.
So what proof/evidence do you have to support your theory.

“Good day to you!”

Since: Oct 08

Earth

#26448 Mar 28, 2014
akopen wrote:
<quoted text>
http://www.jeremybouma.com/the-gospel-accordi...
This link relates the answer to your question. I follow Paul Tillich's Systematic Theology. If I had found reason to disagree with his theology I would not have followed his theology.
"As Tillich insists, Christianity began not when Jesus was born, but the moment one of his followers was driven to say to the man “Jesus,”“Thou, art the Christ.”4 He goes on to argue that as long as people maintain this assertion—that Jesus is the Christ—Christianity will continue as a religion. This is the case because Christianity has two sides: the fact “Jesus of Nazareth,” and this fact’s reception by those who received him as the Christ.5 Tillich reflects Bultmann’s demythologizing effort6 by differentiating between the Jesus of Fact and the Jesus of Faith:“Jesus as the Christ is both a historical fact and a subject of believing reception."
I know people that believe theory. It's a good theory if you wish to examine the early church as being a function of faith and nothing else.
I don't believe the church began at his birth. Obviously it didn't. What we have from just before his birth, his birth and later in his childhood are people(like Mary and Joseph, the herders and the three so called kings) who had personal revelations about whom Jesus was and would become.
Jesus obviously was preaching his gospel long before appointing Peter and the rest to the first positions of governorship of what would become his church. He also appointed seventies to go out and do missionary work and establish churches in towns and villages that would accept their message. They set up bishops, elders, deacons and priests in each congregation. And all of that according to the NT took place while Jesus WAS ALIVE.
So you can believe the church was established after his death. But the NT, not I disagrees with you explicitly.

“Good day to you!”

Since: Oct 08

Earth

#26449 Mar 28, 2014
akopen wrote:
<quoted text>
You make statements without documentation. Please document these statements:
#26409
“History has shown societies outside of the Israelites embraced every form of sexuality normal to depraved that one can think of like sex with youths to bestiality.”
“Pompeii legalized most all those forms of sex by prostitutes so the 'citizens' could pick and choose their likes legally.”
I don't say this out of disrespect but you have a reading comprehension problem. I earlier made a summary of what you stated and you claimed that wasn't what you said when it fact it was what you meant/said.
You now claim I didn't afford documentation for my statement “History has shown societies outside of the Israelites embraced every form of sexuality normal to depraved that one can think of like sex with youths to bestiality.”...“Pompeii legalized most all those forms of sex by prostitutes so the 'citizens' could pick and choose their likes legally.”

I will have to suppose you know nothing of Pompeii and that is the reason you made that statement that... "You make statements without documentation. Please document these statements:"
If you had any knowledge of the social history of Pompeii, you would know that just my mentioning that city was referencing documentation as it exists on the web. Tell me you know nothing of Pompeii and I will gladly educate you of it's sordid sexual history. Tell me your aware of Pompeii's sordid sexual history I referenced and you'll be calling yourself on your own statement made for what purpose? Seems a waste for me to document to you what you know already, if, IF you know of Pompeii's sordid sex industry?

“Good day to you!”

Since: Oct 08

Earth

#26450 Mar 28, 2014
akopen wrote:
<quoted text>
Not only will we have to agree to disagree your disagreement are with other scholars too.
Hermeneutics are not an interpretation. Hermeneutics being many tools and interpretation is putting all those tools together.
Now, I've been rather busy with my Father's care but I have your comments on homosexuality firmly on my schedule of to do things.
That will be the test of hermeneutics. I will define and then interpret.
Well let's play your word usage game. I gave the following as my evidence that you insinuate are all incorrect.

I took the following from this link.... http://www.bing.com/search ...
It was the first explanation given for what hermeneutics is under each link.

Hermeneutics / h &#604;r m &#601; &#712; n j u&#720; t &#618; k s / is the theory of text interpretation
hermeneutics (&#716;h&#604;&#72 0;m&#618;&#712;nju &#720;t&#618;ks)—n: 1. the science of interpretation
hermeneutics, the study of the general principles of biblical interpretation.
Biblical hermeneutics is the study of the principles of interpretation concerning the books of the Bible.
The term hermeneutics covers both the first order art and the second order theory of understanding and interpretation
her·me·neu·tics (hûr&#8242;m&#601;-no &#773;o&#773;&#824 2;t&#301;ks,-nyo&#773; o&#773;&#8242;-) n.(used with a sing. or pl. verb) The theory and methodology of interpretation,
Definition of HERMENEUTIC. 1. plural but sing or plural in constr: the study of the methodological principles of interpretation (as of the Bible)

Why don't you give seven links that will state with in the first sentence that quoting you .... "Hermeneutics are not an interpretation."
Waiting..........

“Good day to you!”

Since: Oct 08

Earth

#26451 Mar 28, 2014
akopen wrote:
<quoted text>
You cling to interpretation as if it comes before hermeneutics. Your last definition says it all.
So, get on with an interpretation. I will tackle your comments on homosexuality. Be prepared to be specific on the tools you use to interpret what the Bible says about homosexuality.
You keep trying to be so philosophical about things you say and it doesn't always work out for you.
A. From the human mind comes interpretation and reasoning or vice-versa, how ever you wish to state it.
B. Humans have come to call the mental action of interpretation "hermeneutics" or the science of interpretation being hermeneutics.
C. You continue to separate the mental action used for interpreting from the tools you say are more importantly used to determine interpretation.
Challenge: subtract the mental action from interpretation and show to me how interpretation can be preformed with just your tools you say are so important. Can you do that? Of course you can't. The tools of interpretation are in the mind, not setting on a table or a floor or in a library or on a screen filled with words. Those are needed for an interpretation obviously to have something to interpret when speaking of literature. We read and we interpret what we read. Not a tough process to understand unless you wish to complicate it?

“Good day to you!”

Since: Oct 08

Earth

#26452 Mar 29, 2014
akopen wrote:
<quoted text>
You got it right. I provided my logic with the link: http://www.jeremybouma.com/the-gospel-accordi... .
"As Tillich insists, Christianity began not when Jesus was born, but the moment one of his followers was driven to say to the man “Jesus,”“Thou, art the Christ.”4 He goes on to argue that as long as people maintain this assertion—that Jesus is the Christ—Christianity will continue as a religion. This is the case because Christianity has two sides: the fact “Jesus of Nazareth,” and this fact’s reception by those who received him as the Christ.5 Tillich reflects Bultmann’s demythologizing effort6 by differentiating between the Jesus of Fact and the Jesus of Faith:“Jesus as the Christ is both a historical fact and a subject of believing reception. One cannot speak the truth about the event on which Christianity is based without asserting both sides.”7"
Are you avoiding my documentation?
I also presented documentation on hermeneutics too. Did you read those links?
I did go your link to see what it stated. And based on this statement "As Tillich insists, Christianity began not when Jesus was born, but the moment one of his followers was driven to say to the man “Jesus,”“Thou, art the Christ.”....that by logical reasoning of what a prophet comes to know personally of God by visions and revelations, way back into OT times the phrase “Thou, art the Christ.” could have been said by Adam, Noah, Abraham, Moses and who knows who else.
One of God's more famous names given to humans to know is Jesus the Christ. I see no evidence that the name was first known only to Mary. I know the Israelis claimed they knew not the name of God and still don't. But Christians claim an angel told his name to Mary. I see that as circumstantial evidence that his name could have been previously known in a limited way. And that would establish in theory his church existed before his birth if in deed a prophet ever muttered in a vision or afterwards in prayer,“Thou, art the Christ.”
Yes of your links to hermemeutics. Let's let that one pass shall we?

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 Kentucky clerk, citing God, defies courts on ga... 7 min Prophet 11
News Same-sex marriage fight turns to clerk who refu... 13 min Messenger 3,208
News Mormon church backs Utah LGBT anti-discriminati... (Mar '15) 29 min Zorri 7,277
News 4 GOP candidates sign anti-gay marriage pledge 32 min WasteWater 333
News Questions and Answers about Kentucky's gay marr... 45 min Responsibiility 14
News Supreme Court rules against clerk in gay marria... 54 min Sterkfontein Swar... 27
News Will clerk issue gay marriage licenses after co... 1 hr Rev Don Wildmoan 30
News Colo. gay discrimination alleged over wedding cake (Jun '13) 1 hr tbird19482 25,876
News Kentucky clerk defies order, refuses to issue s... 1 hr EdmondWA 489
News Supreme Court rules against clerk in gay marria... 1 hr too lazy to log in 57
News Court: Baker who refused gay wedding cake can't... 2 hr WasteWater 1,243
More from around the web