Homosexuality and the Bible

Homosexuality and the Bible

There are 36060 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: 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.

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#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

Location hidden

#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

Location hidden

#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

Since: Feb 09

Location hidden

#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."

Since: Feb 09

Location hidden

#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?

Since: Feb 09

Location hidden

#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

Since: Jun 13

Anchorage, AK

#21541 Oct 24, 2013
Reverend Alan wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
Thanks Rev. I too see KiMare begin to question his belief. He won't admit it though.

Glass houses shatter.

Since: Jun 13

Anchorage, AK

#21542 Oct 24, 2013
RevKen wrote:
<quoted text>
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
"yet seldom do we ask about our being before birth. But is it possible to do one without the other?" http://www.bizcharts.com/stoa_del_sol/plenum/...

That passage relates to the cosmology, to God, to Creation; "is darkness."

Thanks for that post

Since: Jun 13

Anchorage, AK

#21543 Oct 24, 2013
Christian Courage; the willingness to say and do the right thing regardless of the earthly cost.
“The basic anxiety, the anxiety of a finite being about the threat of non-being, cannot be eliminated. It belongs to existence itself.” 9 55
9. Paul Tillich, The Courage to Be, p. 39.
55. Ibid., p. 60.
“As in evolutionary theory, the struggle that creational theology presupposes is a struggle for survival; only here it is a struggle for the survival not only of physical life but for the survival and full realization of our potentiality for spirit.”56
56. Ibid., p. 61.

“As Martin Heidegger has insisted, it is because we are being-towards-death that we are capable of a compassion (German, Mitleid) towards one another, i.e., of a sympathy (suffering-with) that transcends mere passion.”57
57. Ibid., p. 61.
“What is not intended, in the tradition of Jerusalem's interpretation of the matter, is not death as such but what we may call death-serving death, that is death which draws attention to itself instead of drawing us the more fully into life. That is the death that Eve darkly suspects when she is confronted by the wiles of the tempter—and she was right to suspect it.”58
58. Ibid., p. 62.

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#21544 Oct 24, 2013
Reverend Alan wrote:
<quoted text>
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."
Exactly. That's what we are really talking about.

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#21545 Oct 24, 2013
akopen wrote:
Christian Courage; the willingness to say and do the right thing regardless of the earthly cost.
“The basic anxiety, the anxiety of a finite being about the threat of non-being, cannot be eliminated. It belongs to existence itself.” 9 55
9. Paul Tillich, The Courage to Be, p. 39.
55. Ibid., p. 60.
“As in evolutionary theory, the struggle that creational theology presupposes is a struggle for survival; only here it is a struggle for the survival not only of physical life but for the survival and full realization of our potentiality for spirit.”56
56. Ibid., p. 61.
“As Martin Heidegger has insisted, it is because we are being-towards-death that we are capable of a compassion (German, Mitleid) towards one another, i.e., of a sympathy (suffering-with) that transcends mere passion.”57
57. Ibid., p. 61.
“What is not intended, in the tradition of Jerusalem's interpretation of the matter, is not death as such but what we may call death-serving death, that is death which draws attention to itself instead of drawing us the more fully into life. That is the death that Eve darkly suspects when she is confronted by the wiles of the tempter—and she was right to suspect it.”58
58. Ibid., p. 62.
Also, isn't the right thing always based upon love and respect?

Since: Jun 13

Anchorage, AK

#21546 Oct 24, 2013
WasteWater wrote:
<quoted text>
Also, isn't the right thing always based upon love and respect?
Yes, that is what it is saying, "potentiality for spirit."

"He must embrace the spiritual painful experiment of his living. He must embrace the spirutual adventure of becoming man, moving through the many stages that lie between birth and death.”12 59
12. Johannes Baptist Metz, Poverty of Spirit, tr. John Drury (Paramus, N.J., and New York: Paulist, 1968).

Since: Jun 13

Anchorage, AK

#21547 Oct 24, 2013
WasteWater wrote:
<quoted text>
Also, isn't the right thing always based upon love and respect?
Genesis 1: 27 speaks of a relationship created by God with man. Created in God's image. That image is spiritual and at the same time of that creation we became estranged from God. But it is that we were created in God's image, Spirit, that we have the potential to return to God. Read closely to what I've posted and you will begin to see the similarities of phrases from different authors (theologians.)

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 Indonesia court rejects bid to outlaw extramari... 3 min Francis 1
Maybe god is gay! (Dec '09) 14 min June VanDerMark 13,711
News Arlington Receives "All-Star" Rating for LGBTQ ... 22 min The Great Satan 17
News What would Jesus say about same-sex marriage? (Jul '15) 23 min positronium 15,001
Jade's Pork Shack 1 hr Jerome 3
News Former OKC Mayor blames homosexuality for moral... 1 hr Kirk is OK 145
News Unhinged pastor tells "gay world" to "go to a M... 2 hr Europhobia 3
News Ten Commandments judge faces runoff in Alabama ... 7 hr spud 364
News Colo. gay discrimination alleged over wedding cake (Jun '13) 9 hr June VanDerMark 58,465
The Spectrum Cafe (Dec '07) 22 hr GodSmacked 26,930
More from around the web