Homosexuality and the Bible

Homosexuality and the Bible

There are 36052 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: Feb 09

Location hidden

#21212 Oct 17, 2013
SHADOW wrote:
<quoted text>
You will regret every word you now say. There will be a day my foolish friend.
Prove it. Until you do your words are as unconvincing as are KiMerde's.

And we are not friends you reprobate.

Since: Feb 09

Location hidden

#21213 Oct 17, 2013
IV. Six days thou shalt work, but on the seventh day thou shalt rest.

The seventh day is Saturday and Christ-insanity-ists "rest" on the first day of the week, Sunday. How insane is that!

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#21215 Oct 17, 2013
akopen wrote:
<quoted text>
So true. If one talks to a fundamentalist one must agree with them no matter how the facts stack against them. Be prepared to die for disagreeing with them.
Actually they just like to snivel and argue about stupid things in open rebellion to the teachings found in the Bible.

Go figure.

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#21216 Oct 17, 2013
SHADOW wrote:
<quoted text>
Yeah you are right all you are is a stupid argument.
Lest we forget----------
"When and if that happens?
Ss couples will only ever be a mutually sterile, pointlessly duplicate gendered half of marriage.
And ss marriage will still be an oxymoron."
Read this and study, there will be a test later.
Don't argue with me. That's what the Bible teaches. Too bad you can't understand plain English. Your opinion about procreation is totally irrelevant to the discussion at hand. Please try to pay a little more attention.

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#21217 Oct 17, 2013
Reverend Alan wrote:
IV. Six days thou shalt work, but on the seventh day thou shalt rest.
The seventh day is Saturday and Christ-insanity-ists "rest" on the first day of the week, Sunday. How insane is that!
I makes perfectly good sense to rest. Nothing insane about it my friend.
SHADOW

Piscataway, NJ

#21218 Oct 17, 2013
Reverend Alan wrote:
<quoted text>
Prove it. Until you do your words are as unconvincing as are KiMerde's.
And we are not friends you reprobate.
Just a figure of speach rev [email protected]
You are sure touchy for a pervert.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#21219 Oct 17, 2013
Jonah1 wrote:
<quoted text>
LOL!!! It's hilarious that you think so. Just another example of how moronic you are coward!!
You are the moron who sticks things up your ass and calls a duplicate barren relationship marriage. I'm guessing you like the burr.

LOL
SHADOW

Piscataway, NJ

#21220 Oct 17, 2013
WasteWater wrote:
<quoted text>
Don't argue with me. That's what the Bible teaches. Too bad you can't understand plain English. Your opinion about procreation is totally irrelevant to the discussion at hand. Please try to pay a little more attention.
Now you have gone and done it, you hurt my feelings----------NOT!
Yeah you are right all you are is a stupid argument.
Lest we forget----------
"When and if that happens?
Ss couples will only ever be a mutually sterile, pointlessly duplicate gendered half of marriage.
And ss marriage will still be an oxymoron."
Read this and study, there will be a test later.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#21221 Oct 17, 2013
akopen wrote:
<quoted text>
"..., but to fulfill them." NAB 1971.
"5, 17-20: Jesus' teaching does not reject the old law and the prophets; instead, it illumines the meaning God intended the Old Testament ultimately to have (17). NAB 1971.
What they did not get from the Law then was "illumined" by Jesus. Oddly enough, they don't get it now. After 2000 years of Christianity and they still don't get it.
http://www.albertmohler.com/2009/09/03/why-mo...
You are comparing apples and oranges.

Yes, there is the idea of performance as the basis of acceptance by MANY belief systems, including some in Christianity. However, most Christians understand we live under grace.

Here is the distinction we are really addressing. Many assume grace releases a person from moral responsibility. Christians know grace calls us not to the obligation of rules, but the obligation of love. A HIGHER standard than the Law! That is why Jesus said,

Matthew 5:27-28 (NASB)
27 "You have heard that it was said,'YOU SHALL NOT COMMIT ADULTERY';
28 but I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman with lust for her has already committed adultery with her in his heart.

In other words, the Law simply told us what love looked like if you tried to dictate it with words. Jesus provided the spirit of the Law IN ADDITION to the letter of the Law.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#21222 Oct 17, 2013
WasteWater wrote:
<quoted text>
Actually they just like to snivel and argue about stupid things in open rebellion to the teachings found in the Bible.
Go figure.
Then why do you girls ignore science and evolution?

Since: Feb 09

Location hidden

#21223 Oct 17, 2013
WasteWater wrote:
<quoted text>
Actually they just like to snivel and argue about stupid things in open rebellion to the teachings found in the Bible.
Go figure.
The Bible is very clear about that isn't it WasteWater!

ROM. 16:17-18 RSV ("I appeal to you, brethren, to take note of those who created dissensions and difficulties, in opposition to the doctrine which you have been taught; avoid them. For such persons do not serve our Lord Christ, but their own appetites, and by fair and flattering words they deceive the hearts of the simple-minded"),

2 TIM. 2:16-17 ("Avoid such godless chatter, for it will lead people into more and more ungodliness, and their talk will eat its way like gangrene"),

1 TIM. 6:20 ("O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called...."),

2 TIM. 2:14 RSV ("Remind them of this, and charge them before the Lord to avoid disputing about words, which does no good, but only ruins the hearers"),

TITUS 3:9-10 ("But avoid stupid controversies, genealogies, dissensions, and quarrels over the law, for they are unprofitable and futile. As for a man who is factious, after admonishing him once or twice, have nothing more to do with him...."),

ROM. 14:1 RSV ("As for the man who is weak in faith, welcome him, but not for disputes over opinions"),

1 TIM. 6:3-5 RSV ("If any one teaches otherwise and does not agree with the sound words of our Lord Jesus Christ and the teaching which accords with godliness, he is puffed up with conceit, he knows nothing; he has a morbid craving for controversy and for disputes about words, which produce envy, dissensions, slander, base suspicions, and wrangling among men...."),

COL. 2:4 ("I say this in order that no one may delude you with beguiling speech"),

2 TIM. 2:23-25 RSV ("Have nothing to do with stupid, senseless controversies, you know that they breed quarrels. And the Lord's servant must not be quarrelsome but kindly to every one, an apt teacher, forbearing, correcting his opponents with gentleness").

The above proves that all homophobes are not Christians.

Since: Feb 09

Location hidden

#21224 Oct 17, 2013
WasteWater wrote:
<quoted text>
I makes perfectly good sense to rest. Nothing insane about it my friend.
Of course! The problem is that Christians rest on the wrong day.

Except for some sabbatarian groups such as the Seventh-Day Adventists, biblicists don't go to church on the correct day. Saturday, not Sunday is the Sabbath. There is no substantive biblical support for calling Sunday--the first day of the week--the Sabbath. As the text says, "Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy. Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work: But the seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work...." (Ex. 20:8-10, Deut. 5:12-14).

Moreover, the prohibition against labor on the Sabbath is regularly violated since work occurs on every day of the week. With respect to labor, it wouldn't matter what day was the Sabbath. Apologist Gleason Archer stated in The Encyclopedia of Biblical Difficulties (p. 116-121) that several facts seem to teach that Sunday replaced Saturday as the Sabbath. He sought to justify the change by alleging:

•(a) Jesus rose on Sunday;
•(b) Jesus' first appearance to his disciples after the Resurrection was on Sunday;
•(c) The outpouring of the Holy Spirit on the Church first occurred on a Sunday Pentecost;
•(d) Paul told the Corinthian church to put aside money and save on the first day of the week so that no collection would be needed when he arrived (1 Cor. 16:20);
•(e) Paul spoke to a group of Christians until midnight on a Sunday (Acts 20:5-12); and
•(f) The Lord's Day in Rev. 1:10 ("I was in the Spirit on the Lord's Day and I heard behind me a loud voice like the sound of a trumpet") referred to Sunday.

Problems accompany each explanation.
•(a) Jesus rose on Sunday, but died on a Friday. His death was certainly as important as his Resurrection, if not more so. So why wasn't the Sabbath transferred to Friday?;
•(b) and (C) Why would the fact that Jesus first appeared to his disciples on Sunday or the Holy Spirit first fell on the church on Sunday be of such significance as to overrule God's commandment that the seventh day was to be the Sabbath? They are rather weak reeds to lean on, especially when Archer admits that, "After Pentecost it seems that the Christian community continued to celebrate the seventh-day Sabbath as before, by gathering with other Jews (both converted and unconverted) for the reading of the Torah, for preaching, and for prayer" (Ibid. p. 117). He immediately tried to regain his loss by stating, "But there is no demonstable reference to Christians ever gathering on the Sunday Sabbath to celebrate the Lord's Supper or to hold a distinctively Christian assembly" (Ibid. p. 117). But, then, where is the evidence that they regularly gathered on Sunday to celebrate the Lord's Supper or hold distinctively Christian assemblies?;
•(D) and (E) 1 Cor. 16:2 and Acts 20:5-12, or delivering a sermon on Sunday evening hardly warrant changing the Sabbath; and
•(F) Archer's final contention that the Lord's Day in Rev. 1:10 is Sunday relies upon extra-biblical sources and is wholly unconvincing.
When all is said and done, the basic question remains. Where does the Bible specifically and clearly change the Sabbath to Sunday?

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#21225 Oct 17, 2013
SHADOW wrote:
<quoted text>
Now you have gone and done it, you hurt my feelings----------NOT!
Yeah you are right all you are is a stupid argument.
Lest we forget----------
"When and if that happens?
Ss couples will only ever be a mutually sterile, pointlessly duplicate gendered half of marriage.
And ss marriage will still be an oxymoron."
Read this and study, there will be a test later.
Please pay no attention, my lord, to that wicked man R1. He is just like his name—his name means Fool, and folly goes with him.

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#21226 Oct 17, 2013
Reverend Alan wrote:
<quoted text>
The Bible is very clear about that isn't it WasteWater!
ROM. 16:17-18 RSV ("I appeal to you, brethren, to take note of those who created dissensions and difficulties, in opposition to the doctrine which you have been taught; avoid them. For such persons do not serve our Lord Christ, but their own appetites, and by fair and flattering words they deceive the hearts of the simple-minded"),
2 TIM. 2:16-17 ("Avoid such godless chatter, for it will lead people into more and more ungodliness, and their talk will eat its way like gangrene"),
1 TIM. 6:20 ("O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called...."),
2 TIM. 2:14 RSV ("Remind them of this, and charge them before the Lord to avoid disputing about words, which does no good, but only ruins the hearers"),
TITUS 3:9-10 ("But avoid stupid controversies, genealogies, dissensions, and quarrels over the law, for they are unprofitable and futile. As for a man who is factious, after admonishing him once or twice, have nothing more to do with him...."),
ROM. 14:1 RSV ("As for the man who is weak in faith, welcome him, but not for disputes over opinions"),
1 TIM. 6:3-5 RSV ("If any one teaches otherwise and does not agree with the sound words of our Lord Jesus Christ and the teaching which accords with godliness, he is puffed up with conceit, he knows nothing; he has a morbid craving for controversy and for disputes about words, which produce envy, dissensions, slander, base suspicions, and wrangling among men...."),
COL. 2:4 ("I say this in order that no one may delude you with beguiling speech"),
2 TIM. 2:23-25 RSV ("Have nothing to do with stupid, senseless controversies, you know that they breed quarrels. And the Lord's servant must not be quarrelsome but kindly to every one, an apt teacher, forbearing, correcting his opponents with gentleness").
The above proves that all homophobes are not Christians.
Indeed it is. Too bad so many pew warmers like R1 (aka Shadow) don't actually read the Bible carefully and follow it's teachings faithfully.

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#21227 Oct 17, 2013
Reverend Alan wrote:
<quoted text>
Of course! The problem is that Christians rest on the wrong day.
Except for some sabbatarian groups such as the Seventh-Day Adventists, biblicists don't go to church on the correct day. Saturday, not Sunday is the Sabbath. There is no substantive biblical support for calling Sunday--the first day of the week--the Sabbath. As the text says, "Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy. Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work: But the seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work...." (Ex. 20:8-10, Deut. 5:12-14).
Moreover, the prohibition against labor on the Sabbath is regularly violated since work occurs on every day of the week. With respect to labor, it wouldn't matter what day was the Sabbath. Apologist Gleason Archer stated in The Encyclopedia of Biblical Difficulties (p. 116-121) that several facts seem to teach that Sunday replaced Saturday as the Sabbath. He sought to justify the change by alleging:
•(a) Jesus rose on Sunday;
•(b) Jesus' first appearance to his disciples after the Resurrection was on Sunday;
•(c) The outpouring of the Holy Spirit on the Church first occurred on a Sunday Pentecost;
•(d) Paul told the Corinthian church to put aside money and save on the first day of the week so that no collection would be needed when he arrived (1 Cor. 16:20);
•(e) Paul spoke to a group of Christians until midnight on a Sunday (Acts 20:5-12); and
•(f) The Lord's Day in Rev. 1:10 ("I was in the Spirit on the Lord's Day and I heard behind me a loud voice like the sound of a trumpet") referred to Sunday.
Problems accompany each explanation.
•(a) Jesus rose on Sunday, but died on a Friday. His death was certainly as important as his Resurrection, if not more so. So why wasn't the Sabbath transferred to Friday?;
•(b) and (C) Why would the fact that Jesus first appeared to his disciples on Sunday or the Holy Spirit first fell on the church on Sunday be of such significance as to overrule God's commandment that the seventh day was to be the Sabbath? They are rather weak reeds to lean on, especially when Archer admits that, "After Pentecost it seems that the Christian community continued to celebrate the seventh-day Sabbath as before, by gathering with other Jews (both converted and unconverted) for the reading of the Torah, for preaching, and for prayer" (Ibid. p. 117). He immediately tried to regain his loss by stating, "But there is no demonstable reference to Christians ever gathering on the Sunday Sabbath to celebrate the Lord's Supper or to hold a distinctively Christian assembly" (Ibid. p. 117). But, then, where is the evidence that they regularly gathered on Sunday to celebrate the Lord's Supper or hold distinctively Christian assemblies?;
•(D) and (E) 1 Cor. 16:2 and Acts 20:5-12, or delivering a sermon on Sunday evening hardly warrant changing the Sabbath; and
•(F) Archer's final contention that the Lord's Day in Rev. 1:10 is Sunday relies upon extra-biblical sources and is wholly unconvincing.
When all is said and done, the basic question remains. Where does the Bible specifically and clearly change the Sabbath to Sunday?
That depends if one takes the Hebrew Scripture and the Bible literally or not doesn't it? According to the Gospels, doing good work on a Sunday or what ever day is the Lord's Day is perfectly acceptable. For example, one could save a life, put out a fire, perform a rescue, or preach in a church. People who take everything literally can't possibly live according to the standards they often impose upon others. Can you imagine? Let's say a person is in a terrible car accident on the way to church. Do they tell the firemen, "Go away, let me die, I don't want you to commit a grievous sin by working on the Lord's day of rest."
MrOpenminded

Mississauga, Canada

#21228 Oct 17, 2013
Hey maybe don't drink the cool-aid?

Live a good life, do good onto others, but as for who you love nobody has the right to tell you who that is.

The bible is a lovely little fairy tale full of great life lessons that most people should live by.. But to accept it as fact is totally mindless as there is not a shred of proof to back up the bible in realistic terms

There is no God, there is no Devil live a good life and do good onto others without looking for help or to lay blame on some fictional character

Since: Jun 13

Anchorage, AK

#21229 Oct 17, 2013
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
You are comparing apples and oranges.
Yes, there is the idea of performance as the basis of acceptance by MANY belief systems, including some in Christianity. However, most Christians understand we live under grace.
Here is the distinction we are really addressing. Many assume grace releases a person from moral responsibility. Christians know grace calls us not to the obligation of rules, but the obligation of love. A HIGHER standard than the Law! That is why Jesus said,
Matthew 5:27-28 (NASB)
27 "You have heard that it was said,'YOU SHALL NOT COMMIT ADULTERY';
28 but I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman with lust for her has already committed adultery with her in his heart.
In other words, the Law simply told us what love looked like if you tried to dictate it with words. Jesus provided the spirit of the Law IN ADDITION to the letter of the Law.
"Apples and oranges," moralistic as opposed to, one's impulse." If you are moralistic you missed God's grace. This is not about how you somehow missed grace, it is about not getting it. The example of adultery, if understood from the OT percspective, not the modern definition of adultery, then you begin to understand that higher "higher standard" has everything to do with your ethics, morals that takes into consideration your relationships with others, including your woman.

Personally defining the Law does not make your actions moral. Your personal definition of the law does make you moralistic. Being moralistic is not understanding an understanding of, by the grace of God. You mention the "spirit of the law" and it is by that spirit and by your getting it that grace abounds.

Again, your moralistic psuedo-Christian example fails the "spirit of the law."

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#21230 Oct 17, 2013
akopen wrote:
<quoted text>
"Apples and oranges," moralistic as opposed to, one's impulse." If you are moralistic you missed God's grace. This is not about how you somehow missed grace, it is about not getting it. The example of adultery, if understood from the OT percspective, not the modern definition of adultery, then you begin to understand that higher "higher standard" has everything to do with your ethics, morals that takes into consideration your relationships with others, including your woman.
Personally defining the Law does not make your actions moral. Your personal definition of the law does make you moralistic. Being moralistic is not understanding an understanding of, by the grace of God. You mention the "spirit of the law" and it is by that spirit and by your getting it that grace abounds.
Again, your moralistic psuedo-Christian example fails the "spirit of the law."
You want to try that mumbo jumbo one more time?

Since: Jun 13

Anchorage, AK

#21231 Oct 17, 2013
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
You want to try that mumbo jumbo one more time?
"Apples and oranges," moralistic as opposed to, one's impulse." If you are moralistic you missed God's grace. This is not about how you somehow missed grace, it is about not getting it. The example of adultery, if understood from the OT percspective, not the modern definition of adultery, then you begin to understand that higher "higher standard" has everything to do with your ethics, morals that takes into consideration your relationships with others, including your woman.

Personally defining the Law does not make your actions moral. Your personal definition of the law does make you moralistic. Being moralistic is not an understanding, by the grace of God. You mention the "spirit of the law" and, it is by that spirit and by your getting it that grace abounds.

Again, your moralistic psuedo-Christian example fails the "spirit of the law."
What did you not understand? Did you have trouble with the words, moralistic and morals or maybe you did not get the idea behind "impulses," as associated with what you call lust. May be that you did not like being associated with "missing grace." I inferred that you did not get it. Or, did you have a problem with the difference between modern day understanding of adultery and the OT examples of adultery? If you don't get it, you don't get grace, the "grace of God."

Amazing how your understanding of Christianity is moralistic and my understanding is about relationships. If Christianity is about absolute truths, how is it that Christianity does not agree what Christ taught?

Oh ya, in an earlier post, I posted about impulses. You must not have read it. Hum?
Reality Checker

Trimont, MN

#21232 Oct 17, 2013
It's funny...religious fanatics can spew sins about homosexuality and same sex marriage, but it's alright for Adam and Eve's children to have children (Incest)....and that's okay! Hypocrites!!!

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 Judge rejects couple's argument for refusing ga... 7 min Just Think 77
News What would Jesus say about same-sex marriage? (Jul '15) 16 min Get Real 9,985
News Doritos makes rainbow chips in support of gay r... (Sep '15) 43 min neighbor 2,419
News Colo. gay discrimination alleged over wedding cake (Jun '13) 48 min Rocket Man 56,094
News Gay teen against same-sex marriage heckled at u... 4 hr Wondering 53
News Gay couple denied baby through surrogate challe... 5 hr spud 33
News A 2nd former Hershey School student says he was... 10 hr Bob 10
News Senate hopeful Roy Moore: gay sex is the 'same ... 12 hr Prisoner of my Mo... 29
More from around the web