Homosexuality and the Bible

Aug 15, 2011 Full story: www.smh.com.au 26,691

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

“THERE IS NO GOD”

Since: Feb 09

Northern California

#21519 Oct 23, 2013
WasteWater wrote:
<quoted text>
You and I differ on that one. I don't wish harm on anybody.
We are in agreement. I said that for shock value. I do not believe anyone should violate the rights of others and I advocate treating those prisoners who do violate the rights of others decently in prisons. If we don't we are no better than they are.

So I too do not wish harm on anyone, even the reprobates LieMore and R1-SHadow.

Of course clearly I do bring them 'harm' when I correct them with Bible verses, but hey, no pain no gain!

“THERE IS NO GOD”

Since: Feb 09

Northern California

#21520 Oct 23, 2013
Rosa_Winkel wrote:
<quoted text>
I wouldn't go so far.
Out in the country here, some old churches are turned into houses. Or maybe restaurants, art galleries, etc.
I remember a church that was turned into a gay bar in Seattle quite a few years ago. They installed black lights and when you got on the dance floor it was the "in thing" to drop your pants so that your underwear would glow under the lights. It was pretty cool.

PS. I do not advocate destroying other people's property. Nor do I advocate people commit criminal acts. Quoting the Bible is a much better way to take KKKrist-insanity down. It destroys the credibility and authority of reprobates like LieMore.

“THERE IS NO GOD”

Since: Feb 09

Northern California

#21521 Oct 23, 2013
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
True, because is rejected by most biblical scholars.
Just like the earth being round was rejected by biblical scholars.

“THERE IS NO GOD”

Since: Feb 09

Northern California

#21522 Oct 23, 2013
KiMare wrote:
it is rejected
If "it" is the Bible then we are in full agreement.

And here is yet another reason to reject the Bible.

A professor of the Bible and Greek and chairman of the department of Biblical education at Cedarville Bible College, attempted to resolve some of the problems related to the Virgin Birth. He alleged, for example: "Joseph and Mary were legally married or betrothed" (Matt. 1:18). She was called "his wife" twice (Matt. 1:20,24). He was called "her husband" (Matt. 1:19)(The Virgin Birth, by Robert Gromacki, p. 76). Obviously, Gromacki doesn't like the idea of believing his alleged Saviour was illegitimate. Of course, what he has done is opt for the Biblical version that suits his needs, a common ploy of apologists. The KJV of Matthew 1:18 says they were "espoused", which Gromacki equates with "being married," while the Modern Language (ML), the LB, the NWT, and the NI versions clearly say "engaged." There are no valid grounds for equating espoused with being married. Even the RSV and the NASB versions say they were betrothed, i.e. engaged. Gromacki uses the word "married." Although Matthew 1:20, 24 in the KJV strongly imply Mary is Josepj's wife, the ML, the LB, the NAS, and the NI versions show she is not his wife. And while the KJV of Matt. 1:19 says Joseph is Mary's husband, the ML and the LB versions versions refer to Joseph as her fiance. As stated earlier, the version people use depends on what they want to prove. Every Christian is putting his/her money on a Biblical version favored by one group of scholars and taking his/her chances. You could be an expert in Greek and Hebrew and still find scholars who would firmly disagree with your translation of many verses.
In trying to explain why Mary referred to Joseph as Jesus' father, Gromacki says, "In public, Mary had to refer to Jesus as Joseph's son in order not to arouse any suspicion about His origin." (Ibid. p. 75). this explanation is pure speculation, since Gromacki couldn't possibly know Mary's motives, and is also alleging the "Blessed Mother" lied. We are to believe the mother of God deliberately told a falsehood.

“THERE IS NO GOD”

Since: Feb 09

Northern California

#21523 Oct 23, 2013
In a Life Magazine article Robert Coughlan said: "On the other hand, both Gospel writers (Matthew and Luke) give genealogies showing that Jesus was a descendant of King David through the male line-that is, the line of Joseph--an incongruity increased still more by the fact that the genealogies differ." (Life, Dec. 25, 1964, by Robert Coughlan, p. 90). Apologist Gromacki's response to this was: "If both genealogies did record Joseph's physical lineage, then Coughlan was indeed correct; however, no reputable evangelical embraces that position. Coughlan's rejection of the accuracy of the two genealogies was based upon his subjective equation of the two. He nowhere proved that they both belonged to Joseph." (The Virgin Birth, by Gromacki, p.151).

Coughlan doesn't need to "prove it." All one needs to do is read the genealogies in Matt.1 and Luke 3 to see they pertain to Joseph. It's stated quite clearly. The burden of proof lies on the shoulders of Gromacki. He needs to prove the genealogy in Luke 3 pertains to Mary, which isn't possible unless some unwarranted assumptions are made. Her name never appears once in the entire third chapter of Luke. It's rather difficult to believe a geneaology pertains to someone who isn't even mentioned. Another apologist said: "The reason that Mary is not mentioned in Luke 3 is because she has already been designated the mother of Jesus in several instances." (Answers to Tough Questions, by McDowell and Steward, p. 60). Why would this be of significance? The point at issue is not whether Mary is the mother of Jesus, but whether the genealogy in Luke 3 pertains to Mary.
Quite Right

Alexandria, VA

#21524 Oct 23, 2013
Reverend Alan wrote:
<quoted text>I remember a church that was turned into a gay bar in Seattle quite a few years ago. They installed black lights and when you got on the dance floor it was the "in thing" to drop your pants so that your underwear would glow under the lights. It was pretty cool.

PS. I do not advocate destroying other people's property. Nor do I advocate people commit criminal acts. Quoting the Bible is a much better way to take KKKrist-insanity down. It destroys the credibility and authority of reprobates like LieMore.
Rev. Fagg@t, how do you justify molesting little boys as you do, by quoting scriptures after the fact???

Since: Jun 13

Anchorage, AK

#21526 Oct 23, 2013
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
True, because is rejected by most biblical scholars.
You know KiMare, you are almost having a civil conversation.

What do you mean by most scholars. Identify those scholars that reject the 1968 Jerome Biblical Commentary. Give me specific rebuttals and their indoctrination.

" It takes a lifetime of literalistic Bible studies to destroy a human brain,..." http://www.huffingtonpost.com/frank-schaeffer...

Since: Jun 13

Anchorage, AK

#21527 Oct 23, 2013
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
1. JBC was written in 1968 by three liberals.
2. Clearly I did reference the essence of marriage. All humans are hypocrites. You are too.
If people let you down, why are you bitter at God?
1. Liberals?
"The Reverend Raymond Edward Brown, S.S.(May 22, 1928 – August 8, 1998), was an American Roman Catholic priest, a member of the Sulpician Fathers and a prominent Biblical scholar of his era. He was regarded as a specialist concerning the hypothetical ‘Johannine community’, which he speculated contributed to the authorship of the Gospel of John, and he also wrote influential studies on the birth and death of Jesus. Brown was professor emeritus at the Protestant Union Theological Seminary (UTS) in New York, where he taught for 29 years. He was the first Roman Catholic professor to gain tenure there, where he earned a reputation as a superior lecturer.[1]"

"Brown was one of the first Roman Catholic scholars to apply historical-critical analysis to the Bible. As Biblical criticism developed in the 19th century, the Roman Catholic Church opposed this scholarship and essentially forbade it in 1893. In 1943, however, the Church issued guidelines by which Catholic scholars could investigate the Bible historically. Brown called this encyclical the "Magna Carta of biblical progress." Vatican II further supported higher criticism, which, Brown felt, vindicated his approach."

"Brown remains controversial among traditionalist Catholics because of their claim that he denied the inerrancy of the whole of Scripture and cast doubt on the historical accuracy of numerous articles of the Catholic faith.[2] Conservatives were angered at his questioning of whether the virginal conception of Jesus could be proven historically.[1] He was regarded as occupying the center ground in the field of biblical studies,[3] opposing the literalism found among many fundamentalist Christians while not carrying his conclusions as far as many other scholars." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raymond_E._Brown

You see, KiMare, how fundamentalism and orthodoxy then profanes the Word of God, they both reject anything that goes against real truth.

2. Clearly you did not. You are delusional if you think your opinion is a reference to marriage. Nor did your social science article your documentation as you said nothing about the article that it was written for. You applied your own personal thoughs to the article just as you do the Bible.

3. I am not bitter about God. You mistake my God to be your god. You cannot even accept what the Bible says. Your personal god supports the likes of your needs.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#21528 Oct 23, 2013
akopen wrote:
<quoted text>
You know KiMare, you are almost having a civil conversation.
What do you mean by most scholars. Identify those scholars that reject the 1968 Jerome Biblical Commentary. Give me specific rebuttals and their indoctrination.
" It takes a lifetime of literalistic Bible studies to destroy a human brain,..." http://www.huffingtonpost.com/frank-schaeffer...
Too funny,

"It takes a lifetime of literalistic Bible studies to destroy a human brain as completely as is necessary to make an otherwise intelligent person trust Bronze Age myths over science and a flake as obviously perverse as Ted Cruz over a man of such obvious integrity as President Obama, let alone interpret Jesus' teaching as a reason to strip the poor of health care."

This is the President who just knowingly lied to the American people again about how easy it would be to sign up.

The Tea Party is about fiscal responsibility and small government. The fact that they are castigate, and falsely equated to fundamentalism only shows the depravity of mainstream media.

That equates to you trying to engage me in wasted verbiage about the theology of faithless dead-but-not-buried-yet-religi on.

Why do you bother exploring a God you don't believe in?

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#21529 Oct 23, 2013
akopen wrote:
<quoted text>
1. Liberals?
"The Reverend Raymond Edward Brown, S.S.(May 22, 1928 – August 8, 1998), was an American Roman Catholic priest, a member of the Sulpician Fathers and a prominent Biblical scholar of his era. He was regarded as a specialist concerning the hypothetical ‘Johannine community’, which he speculated contributed to the authorship of the Gospel of John, and he also wrote influential studies on the birth and death of Jesus. Brown was professor emeritus at the Protestant Union Theological Seminary (UTS) in New York, where he taught for 29 years. He was the first Roman Catholic professor to gain tenure there, where he earned a reputation as a superior lecturer.[1]"
"Brown was one of the first Roman Catholic scholars to apply historical-critical analysis to the Bible. As Biblical criticism developed in the 19th century, the Roman Catholic Church opposed this scholarship and essentially forbade it in 1893. In 1943, however, the Church issued guidelines by which Catholic scholars could investigate the Bible historically. Brown called this encyclical the "Magna Carta of biblical progress." Vatican II further supported higher criticism, which, Brown felt, vindicated his approach."
"Brown remains controversial among traditionalist Catholics because of their claim that he denied the inerrancy of the whole of Scripture and cast doubt on the historical accuracy of numerous articles of the Catholic faith.[2] Conservatives were angered at his questioning of whether the virginal conception of Jesus could be proven historically.[1] He was regarded as occupying the center ground in the field of biblical studies,[3] opposing the literalism found among many fundamentalist Christians while not carrying his conclusions as far as many other scholars." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raymond_E._Brown
You see, KiMare, how fundamentalism and orthodoxy then profanes the Word of God, they both reject anything that goes against real truth.
2. Clearly you did not. You are delusional if you think your opinion is a reference to marriage. Nor did your social science article your documentation as you said nothing about the article that it was written for. You applied your own personal thoughs to the article just as you do the Bible.
3. I am not bitter about God. You mistake my God to be your god. You cannot even accept what the Bible says. Your personal god supports the likes of your needs.
1. In vitro made the liberal virgin birth deniers look stupid again.

2. Then I guess I'm in denial.

3. You are bigger than your god. Whoppie.

Since: Jun 13

Anchorage, AK

#21530 Oct 23, 2013
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
1. JBC was written in 1968 by three liberals.
2. Clearly I did reference the essence of marriage. All humans are hypocrites. You are too.
If people let you down, why are you bitter at God?
Define liberal.

“Plays well with others.”

Since: Jun 07

LIVING WELL*THE BEST REVENGE

#21531 Oct 23, 2013
I am using RAMBAN now.

Since: Jun 13

Anchorage, AK

#21533 Oct 23, 2013
“If, under the cover of ordinary knowledge, matters of ultimate concern are discussed, theology must protect the truth of revelation against attacks from distorted revelations, whether they appear as genuine religions or as metaphysically transformed ideas.” (Systematic Theology, Paul Tillich, Vol. I, pg. 131).

Since: Jun 13

Anchorage, AK

#21534 Oct 23, 2013
What then is there that gives proof of such allegations of cover up? Canon Law, Ecclesiastical letters from Popes, Cardinals and Bishops, from the Early Church Fathers and, from Roman historians. What redefines the Roman Empire also defined the Early Church. As I explore this redefinition of the Roman-period, both before and after Constantine, it will become clear in terms used and understood today, making todays perception of the Christian ideology both questionable and understandable. What becomes evident to anyone that reads any of the above mentioned writings in the Early Church is not what the Church claims they were talking about but the perverted sexual abuse of innocent young boys. It is evident that what the Church teaches is not always truthful, covering up again, and in this case, the Church's gravest sin. Catholic Faith, all too often, is the blind leading the blind. Matthew 15: 13-14:

“13He said in reply,*“Every plant that my heavenly Father has not planted will be uprooted. 14g Let them alone; they are blind guides (of the blind). If a blind person leads a blind person, both will fall into a pit.”( http://www.usccb.org/bible/matthew/15 ).

This verse is where Jesus lead the disciples away from the Pharisees teaching.

Throughout the centuries, Christianity has become what it is today. I mentioned that Christianity was and still is a mixed bag of ideology. Fact is, all discourse, beginning with the Council of Jerusalem, establishing the divinity of Jesus (the Nicene Creed), establishing the Trinity (Council of Chalcedon) and so on, is then, the history of Christian thought and gives us what is now modernity's mixed bag of Christian ideology. What was at first established as the basics of Christianity has become misunderstood, redefined to meet many different doctrines within established Protestant denominations and the Church. With each new denomination of the Protestant church, comes another mixed bag of ideologies. The question of homosexuality now threatens to redefine Christianity again. From Schism to Reformation and now, the sexual scandal,“threatens to reinvent Christianity for a third millennium.”(The Popes War).

As I write my book on the Church and Pedophilia I can present parts of it to comment on and that may benefit my research.

Since: Aug 11

Scotts Valley, CA

#21535 Oct 23, 2013
Rosa Winkel wrote:
<quoted text>
Lucky we don't take orders from bigots.
Least of all from a nutty wanna be Christian called R1.

Since: Aug 11

Scotts Valley, CA

#21536 Oct 23, 2013
Reverend Alan wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes, an idiot, a God hating, Bible hating, Jesus hating idiot.
I suspect Shadow is the one using all the "judgits" which is proof he is never going to follow or obey biblical teachings, yet he wants other people to do so. He is the worst despicable reprobate I have ever seen in here since Pekin Il AKA David Moore.
JESUS: Matt 7:1-2, "Judge not, that ye be not judged. 2For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again.
Here is proof that Shadow is NOT a Christian but a KKKrist-insanity-ist instead, just like LieMore.
No doubt. lol

“THERE IS NO GOD”

Since: Feb 09

Northern California

#21537 Oct 24, 2013
WasteWater wrote:
<quoted text>
No doubt. lol
I just read this in another Forum:

"A marriage license , issued under a civil authority, is the only legally recognized union between two people. It is a business agreement, nothing more. Any religious ceremony is a purely 'voluntary' adjunct, and is not recognized as a legal 'marriage' without a civil license. Therefore, any argument that 'marriage' has a religious connotation is without standing, and has no place in the discussion. End of discussion, get over it."

“THERE IS NO GOD”

Since: Feb 09

Northern California

#21538 Oct 24, 2013
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
The Tea Party is about fiscal responsibility and small government. The fact that they are castigate, and falsely equated to fundamentalism only shows the depravity of mainstream media.
Well, has hell frozen over? I agree that The Tea Party is about fiscal responsibility and small government, and I do not question that the mainstream media is depraved, I do question how fundamentalists can be in The Tea Party and not fill it with the horrors of Christianity.

I remember going to a Gay Parade years ago, in Sacramento if memory serves, and there were thousands of people there, and 3 of them were dressed as nuns. There was one picture in the paper the next day about the event. Guess which three people were in the picture.

I would like to see some evidence or read some commentary about how the depraved news media presents the fundies in The Tea Party as if they are The Tea Party.

And what interest do you have in The Tea Party since you do not believe in a government small enough to let people marry whom they wish?

“THERE IS NO GOD”

Since: Feb 09

Northern California

#21539 Oct 24, 2013
akopen wrote:
<quoted text> You [KiMare] cannot even accept what the Bible says.
That is an excellent observation. I would love to re-post thousands of biblical commands that KiMare doesn't accept, again, but I have posted them so many times my fingers hurt.

I want to say again that you are doing an excellent job dealing with this problem from the position that you deal with it from. I find it all extremely interesting.

I even see changes in KiMares behaviour. You have really taken him down a notch or two. And if KiMare has any possibility of being objective about it, he will have to admit to it, if only to himself.

It is a good thing what you have done for him, and for the others participating in this discussion.

Since: Aug 09

Location hidden

#21540 Oct 24, 2013
Reverend Alan wrote:
<quoted text>
The pew warmers can hardly wait to get to heaven so they can spend eternity looking down into hell at all the suffering, they believe they will never tire of watching those who didn't accept their assertions being punished. I can imagine even our resident simple minded pew warmers will tire of watching the pain and suffering of others after a couple of billion years.
It is the kind of Christ-insanity that is as real as it gets.
It is a funny thing about the focus and singularity of Mind. It is a function of what is commonly called "prayer."

Whatever you focus and concentrate upon, is what you are drawing to yourself.

Undoubtedly, those who never tire of watching the pain and suffering will eventually close the gap.

"For the measure by which you measure another is the measure by which you yourself will be measured."

His disciples said to Him, "Show us the place where You are,
since it is necessary for us to seek it."
He said to them, "Whoever has ears, let him hear. There is
light within a man of light, and he (or "it") lights up the whole
world. If he (or "it") does not shine, he (or "it") is darkness."

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
Chinese gay dating app grows to 15 million users 8 min nayan 12
Judge overturns California's ban on same-sex ma... (Aug '10) 32 min Cowobunga 201,164
Gay couples exchange vows in Montana after ruling 1 hr Zamby 126
Comedian Margaret Cho to headline at San Jose I... 1 hr FaFooey 20
Pastors opposed to gay marriage swear off all c... 1 hr RevKen 40
Supreme Court won't stop gay marriages in Florida 2 hr NorCal Native 10
Seoul's Mayor Apologizes for Nixing Gay Rights ... 3 hr Ainu 23
Next gay marriage fight: religious exemptions 4 hr Pope Bennie s Closet 4,999
Anti-gay Tenn. billboard stirs religion debate 5 hr KiMerde 2,836
Colo. gay discrimination alleged over wedding cake (Jun '13) 7 hr Rick in Kansas 5,455
Gay Marriage and the Limits of Tradition 8 hr NorCal Native 1,215
TOWIE boys say Balls to Cancer by stripping NAK... 14 hr EdmondWA 12
More from around the web