Homosexuality and the Bible

Aug 15, 2011 | Posted by: Selecia Jones- JAX FL | Full story: www.smh.com.au

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.

Comments (Page 579)

Showing posts 11,561 - 11,580 of24,376
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:
No god

UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#12164
Oct 8, 2012
 
If there was a god he would not say Homosexuals can't enter his kingdom and rapeists and other criminals can just because they say to a prest they are sorry for what they have done
Ken

UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#12165
Oct 8, 2012
 

Judged:

1

No god wrote:
If there was a god he would not say Homosexuals can't enter his kingdom and rapeists and other criminals can just because they say to a prest they are sorry for what they have done
That is not the way of it. They must truly repent and sin no more!
No god

UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#12166
Oct 8, 2012
 
Ken wrote:
<quoted text>
That is not the way of it. They must truly repent and sin no more!
If your truly sorry for what you have done then god would know that but what the bible is saying is because a brain is wired a different way then you can't enter the kingdom of god and what if the brain is wired so your handicapped and can't talk to a preist or have the capability to understand what is right or wrong then by your bible they don't get in the kingdom just because they live

Since: Apr 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#12167
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.
What do you mean? Which debate are you talking about?
Ken

UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#12172
Oct 8, 2012
 

Judged:

5

5

5

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

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#12173
Oct 8, 2012
 

Judged:

5

5

3

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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#12174
Oct 8, 2012
 

Judged:

1

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

UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

Since: Aug 09

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#12176
Oct 9, 2012
 

Judged:

2

2

2

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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#12177
Oct 9, 2012
 

Judged:

1

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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#12179
Oct 9, 2012
 

Judged:

1

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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#12180
Oct 9, 2012
 

Judged:

1

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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#12181
Oct 9, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#12182
Oct 9, 2012
 
Add me guyz...
Up for good chat...
Ready to do anything...
Pin : 29CB0F58

Since: Apr 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#12183
Oct 9, 2012
 

Judged:

1

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?

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Showing posts 11,561 - 11,580 of24,376
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:
Type in your comments below
Name
(appears on your post)
Comments
Characters left: 4000
Type the numbers you see in the image on the right:

Please note by clicking on "Post Comment" 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.

•••
•••
•••
•••