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 730)

Showing posts 14,581 - 14,600 of24,350
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:

“THERE IS NO GOD”

Since: Feb 09

Northern California

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#16191
Jan 28, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
blah blah blah blah blah blah snipped.
I'd rather watch paint dry than bore myself reading another of your pointless fantasies. You haven't a clue what you are talking about.
Robsan5

Chowchilla, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#16192
Jan 28, 2013
 
Reverend Alan wrote:
<quoted text>
That makes as much sense as what the Bible says God is. Besides since you are so stupid that you believe just any old tale you are told, why does it matter which one you believe?
Which "old tale" do I believe?

Robert

“THERE IS NO GOD”

Since: Feb 09

Northern California

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#16194
Jan 28, 2013
 
Robsan5 wrote:
<quoted text>
Which "old tale" do I believe?
Robert
Does it matter? Any one is as bad as any other. Believe nothing, verify everything.
You are all idiots

Wakefield, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#16195
Jan 28, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

Seriously, why is this even a debate? According to the bible we shouldn't eat pork, we shouldn't get divorces, we shouldn't get aroused by anyone other than our partners, and we should treat women as lower-class citizens.
Henceforth any man who tells me homosexuality is an abomination is going to have his wife stoned.
Any woman I'm going to personally stone. Just as the good book tells us to.
Oh, and let's not forget some of the cooler parts of the bible! Have you guys ever heard of Deuteronomy? Sure, it's the most horrendous and disgusting book in the bible, but it sure works wonders for giving you filthy bigots a metaphorical slap to the face.
God never personally said anything about homosexuality, nor did Jesus. You twats are touting the ignorance of MAN, not of God. MAN wrote and spoke those words.
I mean shit, Jesus himself said "Love thy neighbour as you would thyself", "But Lord Jesus, what of the blacks, gays, and women?" "What, did I fucking stutter?" (I might be ad-libbing a little).
And hey, on that not, one of those men wrote "Man should not lay with man as he would with woman", which is pretty obviously just stating that one should partake in sodomy in such a case.
And now onto the science of why you people are wrong: You believe God makes everything, yes? Well here's a fun question: WHY did he make gay folk?
And since God makes man in his own image, I guess that means he's quite the fabulous divine entity, doesn't it?
A person can not control their own neural biology, and as such can NOT in ANY way control who they are and are not attracted to.
Your religion is stolen from another which was stolen from another, even Jesus wasn't Christian. That's how terrible a group you tend to be.
And on that note: Actually prove anything you're saying. And since you CAN'T prove any of it, feel free to keep your ignorance and bigotry to your own damn self you dense, putrid heap of vaginal discharge.
Robsan5

Chowchilla, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#16196
Jan 28, 2013
 
Reverend Alan wrote:
<quoted text>
Does it matter? Any one is as bad as any other. Believe nothing, verify everything.
It does matter. You said I am "so stupid because I believe any old tale."
What "old tale" do I believe?

Robert

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#16198
Jan 28, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

You are all idiots wrote:
Seriously, why is this even a debate? According to the bible we shouldn't eat pork, we shouldn't get divorces, we shouldn't get aroused by anyone other than our partners, and we should treat women as lower-class citizens.
Henceforth any man who tells me homosexuality is an abomination is going to have his wife stoned.
Any woman I'm going to personally stone. Just as the good book tells us to.
Oh, and let's not forget some of the cooler parts of the bible! Have you guys ever heard of Deuteronomy? Sure, it's the most horrendous and disgusting book in the bible, but it sure works wonders for giving you filthy bigots a metaphorical slap to the face.
God never personally said anything about homosexuality, nor did Jesus. You twats are touting the ignorance of MAN, not of God. MAN wrote and spoke those words.
I mean shit, Jesus himself said "Love thy neighbour as you would thyself", "But Lord Jesus, what of the blacks, gays, and women?" "What, did I fucking stutter?" (I might be ad-libbing a little).
And hey, on that not, one of those men wrote "Man should not lay with man as he would with woman", which is pretty obviously just stating that one should partake in sodomy in such a case.
And now onto the science of why you people are wrong: You believe God makes everything, yes? Well here's a fun question: WHY did he make gay folk?
And since God makes man in his own image, I guess that means he's quite the fabulous divine entity, doesn't it?
A person can not control their own neural biology, and as such can NOT in ANY way control who they are and are not attracted to.
Your religion is stolen from another which was stolen from another, even Jesus wasn't Christian. That's how terrible a group you tend to be.
And on that note: Actually prove anything you're saying. And since you CAN'T prove any of it, feel free to keep your ignorance and bigotry to your own damn self you dense, putrid heap of vaginal discharge.
I agree. The Bible is crap.

Since: Aug 09

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#16200
Jan 29, 2013
 

Judged:

1

El Segundo wrote:
Hi KiMare. I also agree with you in a lot. The very unreverend Ken misbelieves homosexuality is resulting from accident of nature. Homosexuality truthfully results from Satanic origin of intervention. RevKen suks. I give his posts the bottom judge, but I will pray for him.
Peace
LOL!!!....

Manmanman, posing as his alter ego El Segundo, again attempts to confirm himself.

No. I do not believe that any particular part of the normal spectrum of human sexual orientation is an accident.

Considering the source and motivation of your prayers, Manmanman, I prefer to not accept your misguided blessings. So, thanks anyway, but, no thanks. I will, however, always seek to accept guidance from the Master, Christ Jesus. It follows that if you can manage to request such guidance for me without coloring your requests with your personal animus toward me, you are welcome to make such prayers on my behalf.

As it is, judging by your message above, you are not quite able to do this, yet.

Until then, little brother Manmanman El Segundo Blue Bottle Fly Feckless Twit,... buzz off.

Oh, and "Don't go away mad. Just go away" - Alfred E. Newman

Rev. Ken

Since: Aug 09

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#16201
Jan 29, 2013
 

Judged:

1

Reverend Alan wrote:
<quoted text>
Does it matter? Any one is as bad as any other. Believe nothing, verify everything.
From one Rev. to another:

That's funny.

If one is inclined to practice a mantra of "believe nothing," one would have no reason to seek to verify anything.

Obviously, you actually are attempting to believe "nothing." But, equally obvious is your inability to describe just what that "nothing" is.

Rev. Ken

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#16202
Jan 29, 2013
 

Judged:

1

You are all idiots wrote:
Seriously, why is this even a debate? According to the bible we shouldn't eat pork, we shouldn't get divorces, we shouldn't get aroused by anyone other than our partners, and we should treat women as lower-class citizens.
Henceforth any man who tells me homosexuality is an abomination is going to have his wife stoned.
Any woman I'm going to personally stone. Just as the good book tells us to.
Oh, and let's not forget some of the cooler parts of the bible! Have you guys ever heard of Deuteronomy? Sure, it's the most horrendous and disgusting book in the bible, but it sure works wonders for giving you filthy bigots a metaphorical slap to the face.
God never personally said anything about homosexuality, nor did Jesus. You twats are touting the ignorance of MAN, not of God. MAN wrote and spoke those words.
I mean shit, Jesus himself said "Love thy neighbour as you would thyself", "But Lord Jesus, what of the blacks, gays, and women?" "What, did I fucking stutter?" (I might be ad-libbing a little).
And hey, on that not, one of those men wrote "Man should not lay with man as he would with woman", which is pretty obviously just stating that one should partake in sodomy in such a case.
And now onto the science of why you people are wrong: You believe God makes everything, yes? Well here's a fun question: WHY did he make gay folk?
And since God makes man in his own image, I guess that means he's quite the fabulous divine entity, doesn't it?
A person can not control their own neural biology, and as such can NOT in ANY way control who they are and are not attracted to.
Your religion is stolen from another which was stolen from another, even Jesus wasn't Christian. That's how terrible a group you tend to be.
And on that note: Actually prove anything you're saying. And since you CAN'T prove any of it, feel free to keep your ignorance and bigotry to your own damn self you dense, putrid heap of vaginal discharge.
Perhaps you want to pick one point to discuss specifically?

Smile.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#16203
Jan 29, 2013
 
RevKen wrote:
<quoted text>
LOL!!!....
Manmanman, posing as his alter ego El Segundo, again attempts to confirm himself.
No. I do not believe that any particular part of the normal spectrum of human sexual orientation is an accident.
Considering the source and motivation of your prayers, Manmanman, I prefer to not accept your misguided blessings. So, thanks anyway, but, no thanks. I will, however, always seek to accept guidance from the Master, Christ Jesus. It follows that if you can manage to request such guidance for me without coloring your requests with your personal animus toward me, you are welcome to make such prayers on my behalf.
As it is, judging by your message above, you are not quite able to do this, yet.
Until then, little brother Manmanman El Segundo Blue Bottle Fly Feckless Twit,... buzz off.
Oh, and "Don't go away mad. Just go away" - Alfred E. Newman
Rev. Ken
Waiting for a response rev.

Smile.

Since: Aug 09

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#16204
Jan 30, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
Waiting for a response rev.
Smile.
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
I know exactly what you tried to 'equate'. Your Christian theology isn't judged by the world, it's judged by the Word. Like I said, those who know the Word judge you a heretic.

...

The context of the Martha and Mary incident is that they were there to serve Jesus and the disciples. You once again falsely equate the desire to hear God speak with His commission of Disciples. Clearly Mary and Martha were not included in the latter.
The prohibition of formal positions of authority by women over men is clearly stated at the end of I Tim 2. Immediately formal positions in the Church follow in I Tim 3.

...

But please, try another example from God's Word that equates gender authority.
Meanwhile rev., here is a question for you. If there were a group of women in a church with specific needs and problems, according to Biblical instruction, who would you appoint to assist them? All women? All men? Or mixed?
Smile.
Dear Kimare,

If the above (from post #16184) is what you are waiting for me to respond to, I offer the following:

As to the last question, if and when it is in my purview to delegate authority or to appoint a person to manage a problem, I look for two things:
1. A willingness to do the job that needs to be done.
2. A demonstration of either apparent or expected competency.

Other than these, the needs of the situation are best determined as the situation arises. If you are asking whether or not spiritual discernment or prayer are a part of any such process of delegation or assignment of duties, regardless of the gender of the individuals helping or being helped; yes, of course. Sometimes openly. Sometimes not.

What you (and others) call "God's Word" may mean different things. By your writing, I believe that you are referring to scripture. But, authority is a characteristic of Living Being. Scripture can be used to make reference to custom and tradition, including Law and precedent. But, the authority in Spirit is a function that comes only through the person.

If you do not understand this, review the story in scripture where Jesus is asked by what authority he teaches.

You wrote:
"The context of the Martha and Mary incident is that they were there to serve Jesus and the disciples. You once again falsely equate the desire to hear God speak with His commission of Disciples. Clearly Mary and Martha were not included in the latter.
The prohibition of formal positions of authority by women over men is clearly stated at the end of I Tim 2. Immediately formal positions in the Church follow in I Tim 3."

No.

Here is the scripture:

"Martha, Martha, you are worried and distracted by many things; there is need of only one thing. Mary has chosen the better part, which will not be taken away fom her."

As for the Letters to Timothy, they were written by Paul, or his representative. They therefore reflect the culture and traditions of the time and as approved by Paul. You may choose to conduct yourself as you believe to be correct. But, 13 years ago we entered the 21st Century.

We ordain women to the priesthood and ministry of Christ Jesus. Women have consistently and competently proven themselves to be able to do every bit as good a job in this capacity as any man can do. They function in the Spirit with Light and with the authority vested in them by Christ Jesus.

The precedent for doing this was set by Christ Jesus. Ask yourself if women in His discipleship were present when He Blessed the disciples and breathed the Holy Spirit into them as told in Chapter 20 of the Gospel of John. They were.

Rev. Ken

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#16206
Jan 30, 2013
 

Judged:

1

RevKen wrote:
<quoted text>
<quoted text>
Dear Kimare,
If the above (from post #16184) is what you are waiting for me to respond to, I offer the following:
As to the last question, if and when it is in my purview to delegate authority or to appoint a person to manage a problem, I look for two things:
1. A willingness to do the job that needs to be done.
2. A demonstration of either apparent or expected competency.
Other than these, the needs of the situation are best determined as the situation arises. If you are asking whether or not spiritual discernment or prayer are a part of any such process of delegation or assignment of duties, regardless of the gender of the individuals helping or being helped; yes, of course. Sometimes openly. Sometimes not.
What you (and others) call "God's Word" may mean different things. By your writing, I believe that you are referring to scripture. But, authority is a characteristic of Living Being. Scripture can be used to make reference to custom and tradition, including Law and precedent. But, the authority in Spirit is a function that comes only through the person.
If you do not understand this, review the story in scripture where Jesus is asked by what authority he teaches.
You wrote:
"The context of the Martha and Mary incident is that they were there to serve Jesus and the disciples. You once again falsely equate the desire to hear God speak with His commission of Disciples. Clearly Mary and Martha were not included in the latter.
The prohibition of formal positions of authority by women over men is clearly stated at the end of I Tim 2. Immediately formal positions in the Church follow in I Tim 3."
No.
Here is the scripture:
"Martha, Martha, you are worried and distracted by many things; there is need of only one thing. Mary has chosen the better part, which will not be taken away fom her."
As for the Letters to Timothy, they were written by Paul, or his representative. They therefore reflect the culture and traditions of the time and as approved by Paul. You may choose to conduct yourself as you believe to be correct. But, 13 years ago we entered the 21st Century.
We ordain women to the priesthood and ministry of Christ Jesus. Women have consistently and competently proven themselves to be able to do every bit as good a job in this capacity as any man can do. They function in the Spirit with Light and with the authority vested in them by Christ Jesus.
The precedent for doing this was set by Christ Jesus. Ask yourself if women in His discipleship were present when He Blessed the disciples and breathed the Holy Spirit into them as told in Chapter 20 of the Gospel of John. They were.
Rev. Ken
Thank you for your response.

The answer to my question according to Scriptural record is this;

Acts 6:1-4 (NASB)
1 Now at this time while the disciples were increasing in number, a complaint arose on the part of the Hellenistic Jews against the native Hebrews, because their widows were being overlooked in the daily serving of food.
2 So the twelve summoned the congregation of the disciples and said, "It is not desirable for us to neglect the word of God in order to serve tables.
3 "Therefore, brethren, select from among you seven men of good reputation, full of the Spirit and of wisdom, whom we may put in charge of this task.
4 "But we will devote ourselves to prayer and to the ministry of the word."

It is the first example of the office of Deacon. Seven men meeting the needs of only women.

As to your rejection of I Tim 2 & 3, I simply refer to Christ's response;

Mark 7:13 (MSG)
You scratch out God's Word and scrawl a whim in its place. You do a lot of things like this."

As to John 20, you are not honest about your assertion. There is no absolute indication anyone but the twelve Disciples, absent Thomas, were present.

As I stated, Scripture is clear and consistent in It's instruction and practice regarding gender authority.

Perhaps you want to try again?

Smile.
Robsan5

Bixby, OK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#16207
Jan 30, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
Thank you for your response.
The answer to my question according to Scriptural record is this;
Acts 6:1-4 (NASB)
1 Now at this time while the disciples were increasing in number, a complaint arose on the part of the Hellenistic Jews against the native Hebrews, because their widows were being overlooked in the daily serving of food.
2 So the twelve summoned the congregation of the disciples and said, "It is not desirable for us to neglect the word of God in order to serve tables.
3 "Therefore, brethren, select from among you seven men of good reputation, full of the Spirit and of wisdom, whom we may put in charge of this task.
4 "But we will devote ourselves to prayer and to the ministry of the word."
It is the first example of the office of Deacon. Seven men meeting the needs of only women.
As to your rejection of I Tim 2 & 3, I simply refer to Christ's response;
Mark 7:13 (MSG)
You scratch out God's Word and scrawl a whim in its place. You do a lot of things like this."
As to John 20, you are not honest about your assertion. There is no absolute indication anyone but the twelve Disciples, absent Thomas, were present.
As I stated, Scripture is clear and consistent in It's instruction and practice regarding gender authority.
Perhaps you want to try again?
Smile.
This was your whole point?!? To prove how smart you are?!?
FAIL.

Wow are you stupid.

Robert

Since: Aug 09

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#16208
Jan 30, 2013
 

Judged:

3

3

2

KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
Thank you for your response.
The answer to my question according to Scriptural record is this;
Acts 6:1-4 (NASB)
1 Now at this time while the disciples were increasing in number, a complaint arose on the part of the Hellenistic Jews against the native Hebrews, because their widows were being overlooked in the daily serving of food.
2 So the twelve summoned the congregation of the disciples and said, "It is not desirable for us to neglect the word of God in order to serve tables.
3 "Therefore, brethren, select from among you seven men of good reputation, full of the Spirit and of wisdom, whom we may put in charge of this task.
4 "But we will devote ourselves to prayer and to the ministry of the word."
It is the first example of the office of Deacon. Seven men meeting the needs of only women.
As to your rejection of I Tim 2 & 3, I simply refer to Christ's response;
Mark 7:13 (MSG)
You scratch out God's Word and scrawl a whim in its place. You do a lot of things like this."
As to John 20, you are not honest about your assertion. There is no absolute indication anyone but the twelve Disciples, absent Thomas, were present.
As I stated, Scripture is clear and consistent in It's instruction and practice regarding gender authority.
Perhaps you want to try again?
Smile.
It is interesting that you would pick the scriptural passage of Chapter 7 in Mark.

The whole idea of the passage is about the hypocrisy of the Pharisees. Like the modern day biblical Literalists/Fundamentalists, they built their practice around strict interpretations. But, they forgot what it was all about.

As to who was present after the Resurrection when Jesus came to them, it is you, not me, who is not being honest.

In Luke 24:8 the scripture reads: "Then they remembered his words, and returning from the tomb, they told all this to the eleven and to all the rest. Now it was Mary Magdalene, Joanna, Mary the mother of James, and the other women with them who told this to the apostles.

And again at 24:33 it is written, "That same hour they got up and returned to Jerusalem; and they found the eleven and their companions gathered together." Read on and understand.

In The acts of the Apostles, chapter 1:14 scripture reads "All these were constantly devoting themselves to prayer, together with certain women, including Mary the mother of Jesus, as well as his brothers."

And again in Acts, Chapter 2:18
"Even upon my slaves, both men and women, in those days I will pour out my Spirit; and they shall prophesy."

And again in Chapter 9:2 "..., so that if he found any who belonged to the Way, men or women, he might bring them bound to Jerusalem."

I am sorry that you cannot yet see these things. But, there are many who do not yet understand and so, you have plenty of company. But, the truth is that women were officially very much a part of the Ministry of the Gospel then, and they are also doing all that is asked of them in the Spirit, today.

In our Churches, they may hold the offices of Deacon, priest and bishop, and they are very good at it.

Rev. Ken

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#16209
Jan 31, 2013
 
Selecia Jones- JAX FL wrote:
It is a long walk, but well worth the journey to find God. He is there for us ALL.
No! He Isn't!!!

He very clearly condemns same sex relations!!!
He even destroyed a city because of it!!!

Don't even go there!
Gods message is very CLEAR!!!

Since: Apr 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#16210
Jan 31, 2013
 
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
Thank you for your response.
The answer to my question according to Scriptural record is this;
Acts 6:1-4 (NASB)
1 Now at this time while the disciples were increasing in number, a complaint arose on the part of the Hellenistic Jews against the native Hebrews, because their widows were being overlooked in the daily serving of food.
2 So the twelve summoned the congregation of the disciples and said, "It is not desirable for us to neglect the word of God in order to serve tables.
3 "Therefore, brethren, select from among you seven men of good reputation, full of the Spirit and of wisdom, whom we may put in charge of this task.
4 "But we will devote ourselves to prayer and to the ministry of the word."
It is the first example of the office of Deacon. Seven men meeting the needs of only women.
As to your rejection of I Tim 2 & 3, I simply refer to Christ's response;
Mark 7:13 (MSG)
You scratch out God's Word and scrawl a whim in its place. You do a lot of things like this."
As to John 20, you are not honest about your assertion. There is no absolute indication anyone but the twelve Disciples, absent Thomas, were present.
As I stated, Scripture is clear and consistent in It's instruction and practice regarding gender authority.
Perhaps you want to try again?
Smile.
Keep up the good work KimAre.
Robsan5

Bixby, OK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#16212
Jan 31, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

Manmanman wrote:
<quoted text>
Keep up the good work KimAre.
Who are you replying to, Manmanman? The post you replied to was written by Kimare, but you wrote "KimAre". I think you have a problem with respecting others' boundaries.
I pray for you.

Robert
Bob

Ipswich, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#16213
Jan 31, 2013
 
Ahhhh the bib.......EL!
Well JC did run around with a gang of 12 'dudes'! Who got jealous when he kissed Mary Magdalene!
Seriously speaking, I think the whole point is that a coupling of man & man cannot produce a child so is a waste of precious man muck. Women & women.....all good, no waste of semen. Go forth & multiply remember.
Now that the planet is fairly full of useless people - wasting man juice is probably OK with the big G, therefore a sudden boom in "batty mans" innit. The bible was written when people were incredibly stupid. I hope we get a revision soon cause I'm too embarrassed to admit I'm from this planet.

Since: Apr 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#16214
Jan 31, 2013
 
Robsan5 wrote:
<quoted text>
Who are you replying to, Manmanman? The post you replied to was written by Kimare, but you wrote "KimAre". I think you have a problem with respecting others' boundaries.
I pray for you.
Robert
:) Thanks for your prayer. Can you be more specific? How do you think I disrespect his boundaries?

Actually I didn't mean to spell his name wrong. I meant KiMare. That's his name ;)
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#16216
Jan 31, 2013
 
Robsan5 wrote:
<quoted text>
You spelled his wrong on purpose, el segundo. His name is KickMe! You do not respect the boundaries of others.
I pray that you will burn in hell forever.
Robert
Aw shuddup Robert you silly jackass! Bark like a dog for me! You know, like you used to. Woof! Yip! Yip!

You are a genuine JACKASS! And a sissy!

I pray you can't take a sh!t!

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

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Showing posts 14,581 - 14,600 of24,350
|
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.

•••
•••
•••
•••