Homosexuality and the Bible

Aug 15, 2011 Full story: www.smh.com.au 26,692

Given the ongoing debate about same-sex marriage, it is time I looked at the two Testaments to remind myself why belief is so hard for me to embrace.

Full Story
Ken

UK

#12168 Oct 8, 2012
There is no menton in the Bible of any such instances. Nor is there any need to be, for God knows purity.

Since: Apr 12

Location hidden

#12169 Oct 8, 2012
Ken wrote:
There is no menton in the Bible of any such instances. Nor is there any need to be, for God knows purity.
What did you mean? Was this an answer to me or?
Ken

UK

#12170 Oct 8, 2012
Manmanman wrote:
<quoted text>
What did you mean? Was this an answer to me or?
Not to you - to no god.

Since: Apr 12

Location hidden

#12171 Oct 8, 2012
RevKen and Middleway can't debate; They seem to carry the problems in themselves?

Psalm 1.6:

For the Lord watches over the way of the righteous,
but the way of the wicked leads to destruction.

from NIV (New International Version)

What is it to be wicked? Isn't it to abuse and insult those who try to ask questions? Rhys does that as well?

Name-calling; Isn't that wickedness?

He who does that might end up in a terrible place if they don't repent, and I see no wish to repent. I am sorry about that.

I forgive everything, and I can observe what happens to those terrible behaviours?

RevKen, Middleway and Rhys; Be blessed all of you and all others in the Name of the Allmighty and One and in the Name of His Son Yeshua.

Since: Aug 11

Santa Cruz, CA

#12172 Oct 8, 2012
Ken wrote:
<quoted text>
That debate is just about over. The Bible followers have won whilst the homosexuals have retreated into a corner to lick their sore bums.
*** CONGRATULATIONS ***

You just won the STUPID POST OF THE DAY AWARD.

Since: Aug 11

Santa Cruz, CA

#12173 Oct 8, 2012
Ken wrote:
There is no menton in the Bible of any such instances. Nor is there any need to be, for God knows purity.
The Bible is NOT God. Your God is too small.

Since: May 11

Location hidden

#12174 Oct 8, 2012
Ken wrote:
<quoted text>
That debate is just about over. The Bible followers have won whilst the homosexuals have retreated into a corner to lick their sore bums.
There never was any debate because you, under all your different aliases, simply reposted the same old verses and heaped abuse on any person who questioned your point of view.

You're living about 600 years too late and would have been more suited to the period where people were burned at the stake for believing that the earth orbited the sun, or had a mole/wart on their body or a black cat came near them.

You know so little about your own holy book that you had no clue even that it contained 66 books rather than the 73 book Catholic version that I kept referring to.
No god

London, UK

#12175 Oct 9, 2012
Romans 1

(26) Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones.(27) In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.
This passage has been debated by some twentieth and twenty-first century interpreters both in terms of its relevance today and in terms of its actual prohibition.[12] While Christians of all denominations have historically maintained that this verse is a complete prohibition of all forms of homosexuality.[13][14][15][16] [17] some twentieth and twenty-first century authors contend the passage is not a blanket condemnation of homosexuality at all.[18][19][20]

Still others have argued that Paul's writings must be considered fallible, due, in part to the positions (or lack thereof) that he takes on slavery and women.[21][22][23][24][25]

So there just changing the meaning of what the bible says to go with the times
Join Free

Since: Aug 09

Location hidden

#12176 Oct 9, 2012
No god wrote:
Romans 1
(26) Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones.(27) In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.
This passage has been debated by some twentieth and twenty-first century interpreters both in terms of its relevance today and in terms of its actual prohibition.[12] While Christians of all denominations have historically maintained that this verse is a complete prohibition of all forms of homosexuality.[13][14][15][16] [17] some twentieth and twenty-first century authors contend the passage is not a blanket condemnation of homosexuality at all.[18][19][20]
Still others have argued that Paul's writings must be considered fallible, due, in part to the positions (or lack thereof) that he takes on slavery and women.[21][22][23][24][25]
So there just changing the meaning of what the bible says to go with the times
Posted from the Episcopal Church Forum (which is cross-linked with some orther Forums):

TEC (The Episcopal Church) has based its progressive position on the structure of its faith.

That is, TEC puts its belief sytsem to the test. We believe that good Church Doctrine should be able to demonstrate Tradition, Scripture and Reason.

Modern psychological and genetic research within the behavioral sciences leads us to believe that homosexuality is a minor, normal variation in the spectrum of human sexuality. So, even though the homosexual relationship may appear to be unseemly to the average heterosexual observer, it is apparent that many homosexuals seek long term pair-bonding for exactly the same emotional, physical and spiritual purposes as do heterosexual couples.

The thread topic is about searching, and searching from within the Traditional views of scripture, for inconsistencies that can be used as leverage to move modern theology toward acceptance of the legitimacy of the committed homosexual relationship.

It is a proper quest. It is also absolutely controversial.

Rev. Ken
No god

UK

#12177 Oct 9, 2012
So they are changing the meaning according to the times so if there is a god then they are entering the kingdom of god
Kade

UK

#12178 Oct 9, 2012
Ivorydick wrote:
<quoted text>
There never was any debate because you, under all your different aliases, simply reposted the same old verses and heaped abuse on any person who questioned your point of view.
You're living about 600 years too late and would have been more suited to the period where people were burned at the stake for believing that the earth orbited the sun, or had a mole/wart on their body or a black cat came near them.
You know so little about your own holy book that you had no clue even that it contained 66 books rather than the 73 book Catholic version that I kept referring to.
Actually, if YOU had been living in that era, then itsvery likely that YOU would have been one of those who believed the earth was flat, etc.

Since: May 11

Location hidden

#12179 Oct 9, 2012
Kade wrote:
<quoted text>
Actually, if YOU had been living in that era, then itsvery likely that YOU would have been one of those who believed the earth was flat, etc.
Hardly.
I made a bad Catholic because I asked questions all the time, especially as I saw, more & more, what a fraud the Catholic church was - and all its spun off derivatives.
Kade

UK

#12180 Oct 9, 2012
Those who believed the earth was flat, or that the Earth was the centre of the universe were not all fools. Not by a very long way. They based their beliefs on what information was available at the time.

To a people unaware of the Earth's rotation, it would appear that the sun, moon and stars do indeed orbit our planet. Those people were not idiots!

How easy it is to look back and think,'Oh, but 'I' would have known better.'

Since: May 11

Location hidden

#12181 Oct 9, 2012
Kade wrote:
Those who believed the earth was flat, or that the Earth was the centre of the universe were not all fools. Not by a very long way. They based their beliefs on what information was available at the time.
To a people unaware of the Earth's rotation, it would appear that the sun, moon and stars do indeed orbit our planet. Those people were not idiots!
How easy it is to look back and think,'Oh, but 'I' would have known better.'
I'm talking about 600 years ago and the attitude of the Church to any dissent.

In the West, the ancient Greeks by the 4th century BC were aware that the earth was neither flat nor the centre of the universe although Ptolemy placed the earth at the centre and his view was accepted by the Church.

As far back as the 9th century BC Indian Vedic Sanskrit texts described the Sun is a fixed, stationary point in our solar system with the planets revolving around it.

Copernicus (1473-1543) was the first person to scientifically describe the true situation but the Pope savagely suppressed all arguments relating to his theory. Nearly a hundred years later, Galileo further expanded on Copernicus' theory resulting in his being tried for blasphemy and forced to recant his beliefs before spending the rest of his life under house arrest.

Ferdinand Magellan got it right when he said, "The Church says the Earth is flat. But I know that it is round. For I have seen the shadow on the Moon. And I have more faith in a shadow than in the Church."
sam

Mumbai, India

#12182 Oct 9, 2012
Add me guyz...
Up for good chat...
Ready to do anything...
Pin : 29CB0F58

Since: Apr 12

Location hidden

#12183 Oct 9, 2012
Ivorydick wrote:
<quoted text>
There never was any debate because you, under all your different aliases, simply reposted the same old verses and heaped abuse on any person who questioned your point of view.
You're living about 600 years too late and would have been more suited to the period where people were burned at the stake for believing that the earth orbited the sun, or had a mole/wart on their body or a black cat came near them.
You know so little about your own holy book that you had no clue even that it contained 66 books rather than the 73 book Catholic version that I kept referring to.
I think Ken is not the same guy as that guy from Lacon? Actually what happened to him?

Since: Apr 12

Location hidden

#12185 Oct 10, 2012
RevKen, the man with the big problems, what happened to him?

RevKen; Be blessed and all others as well.

What happened to El Segundo?

Since: Aug 09

Location hidden

#12186 Oct 10, 2012
Manmanman wrote:
RevKen, the man with the big problems, what happened to him?
RevKen; Be blessed and all others as well.
What happened to El Segundo?
Dearest MMM,

LOL!!!....
YOU are El Segundo.

You have tried, unsuccessfully, to fool everyone on these threads by having a conversation with yourself, El Segundo. There is an El Segundo and his name is Manmanman!

You repeatedly threaten anyone who calls you out for meddling on these threads without any apparent purpose. You attempt to curse them, saying, "maybe so and so will go to a terrible place or fate."

Do you think people do not understand your threats?

What are you doing here, anyway? What is your purpose? Why do you never present your point of view on the thread subject matter?

You think I have prblems? LOL! What is YOUR problem? Why does nobody reply to you and your incessant whining?

Now, it is your turn and .... because you have continued to whine and threaten people on these threads, while repeatedly refusing to post on-topic,

I am reporting YOU to the TOPIX administrators for your constant threats, bad behavior and deliberate refusal to comply with TOPIX terms of service.

It is reported.

Rev. Ken

Since: Apr 12

Location hidden

#12187 Oct 10, 2012
RevKen wrote:
<quoted text>
Dearest MMM,
LOL!!!....
YOU are El Segundo.
You have tried, unsuccessfully, to fool everyone on these threads by having a conversation with yourself, El Segundo. There is an El Segundo and his name is Manmanman!
You repeatedly threaten anyone who calls you out for meddling on these threads without any apparent purpose. You attempt to curse them, saying, "maybe so and so will go to a terrible place or fate."
Do you think people do not understand your threats?
What are you doing here, anyway? What is your purpose? Why do you never present your point of view on the thread subject matter?
You think I have prblems? LOL! What is YOUR problem? Why does nobody reply to you and your incessant whining?
Now, it is your turn and .... because you have continued to whine and threaten people on these threads, while repeatedly refusing to post on-topic,
I am reporting YOU to the TOPIX administrators for your constant threats, bad behavior and deliberate refusal to comply with TOPIX terms of service.
It is reported.
Rev. Ken
It's reported of course. Then I just put it on the fire and burn it or just leave it to someone that cares, administrators i.e.

Since: Aug 09

Location hidden

#12188 Oct 10, 2012
Manmanman wrote:
<quoted text>
It's reported of course. Then I just put it on the fire and burn it or just leave it to someone that cares, administrators i.e.
I report YOU, of course.

But, LOL, as is the case, the posts that you have made, threatening others, while refusing to post on-topic, are all here in plain sight for everybody to read and then to ignore.

And as for "putting it on the fire and burning it"... well, that too is a bunch of malarky. My posts and replies are right here foe everyone to read, also. And nothing has gone onto the fire - or better yet, ALL of it has survived your little flaming temper tantrums and incessant whining and tattling.

So enjoy your ineffectual inferno and retire to your own terrible little dark place.

In the meantime, while you are licking your psychic wounds and dabbing your pouty little bruised lips and whimpering and simpering in frustration at your own misery, try posting here with something that relates to the thread topic.

Oh, and by the way, I remind you that YOU are reported again for refusing to comply with TOPIX Terms of Service.

Enjoy your medicine as the flames in your waste can rise up around you.

Rev. Ken

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
Saturday Morning With NE Jade 8 min Gremlin 1
Next gay marriage fight: religious exemptions 13 min Mikey 5,001
Black churchgoers break with leading Democrats ... (Apr '12) 19 min Just Think 1,903
Transgender Woman Featured in New Television Ca... 41 min TerryE 21
Supreme Court allows same-sex marriages in Florida 46 min Le Jimbo 1
Bill Would Let Michigan Doctors, EMTs Refuse To... 1 hr lides 151
Colo. gay discrimination alleged over wedding cake (Jun '13) 1 hr lides 5,456
Anti-gay Tenn. billboard stirs religion debate 2 hr KiMare 2,837
Gay Marriage and the Limits of Tradition 11 hr NorCal Native 1,215
TOWIE boys say Balls to Cancer by stripping NAK... 17 hr EdmondWA 12
More from around the web