Homosexuality and the Bible

Homosexuality and the Bible

There are 36047 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.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#17350 Mar 28, 2013
Vick Torre wrote:
<quoted text> I was making a point about sterile couples and aged people. Asking you IF they should be denied because no children would be born. Get it now?
Never been a problem before. Why now?

SMile.
Vick Torre

Jersey City, NJ

#17351 Mar 28, 2013
SHADOW wrote:
<quoted text>
Boy you are one bitter SOB huh.
Now we have established you hate the organized religions. You hate and ridicule the Bible and it's teachings. You hate the "faiths" as a whole.
How about the ten commandments-you find fault there as well?
OK we know you hate already.
What I posted was simply the natural order of things.
You will admit man and woman were made for each other right?
It is how the young are born.
What ever happened in your miserable life to make you that twisted and bitter anyway? It is sad to see someone like you.
Hate-maybe. I really don't care what's in religious writings. I use to believe till I seen how bitter many religious drones are. Then try to dictate how to live my life. Example is you posting on the "natutal order of life". Life has lots of oddities. She-males for one. They are of both sexes. Other species need no mate. Interchangable sexes. In essence they have no need for another of the species to reproduce. Religion itself set me on the course of seeking truth. Began to question scripture. IF ALL followed the BiBull this world would not be turmoil. Crime-wars-famine-.C.E.O.s not being greedy,etc. Where are the believers faith? The very ones in positions of power don't live by the words of the BIBULL. How many swear on it before taking office then break that oath? They must not believe either. What I seek is truth. What I'm told/ read/ hear isn't good enough for me. Why I said all faiths cannot be correct. Therefore which one to follow? Religious leaders should be locked in a room and at least decide on one. Otherwise, none of them know absolutely. But have you live your life by their say-so. Which is what you do. Lead along life like a sheep by unsure beliefs. Foolhardy. So I continue to seek truth.
Vick Torre

Jersey City, NJ

#17352 Mar 28, 2013
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
Never been a problem before. Why now?
SMile.
Watch some news. That's why now. Thr religious saying marriage is about producing children. Yep,that's what the hetero crowd yells into TV cameras.(
Vick Torre

Jersey City, NJ

#17353 Mar 28, 2013
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
So you are saying that the Bible should have said 'amino acids'. Something no one would understand for thousands of years until only the last 100?
Sorry, when you are the only gender, gender is not considered. Moreover, marriage in the Bible heralds back to that very idea when it describes the man and woman becoming one.
Keep trying.
Smile.
It could have said "pools of life". Easy to understand. DNA was mapped out competely. Hear about binary code in math of zeros and ones? Infinate combinations according to mathematics,of just 2 numbers. DNA has 4. And discovered it has memory to learn to adapt to environment as to why a diverse variety of species over millions of years. Whereas the bible-nine of were around to witness. Anyone could write anything during the "writings" over the given time period. Keep trying yo convince us. God I tried finding for 50yrs. Nothing. God will have to reach me then. Would'nt take much trouble. Since he's powerful,all knowing etc. What miniscule effort for him to induce a dream in me or some message. Then he'd have another devoted follower.
Barry Bali

Denpasar, Indonesia

#17354 Mar 28, 2013
The bible is only a work of ( ancient ) fiction and no reliance can be placed on anything written therein. Jesus is most likely a myth, and the god of the old testament is a nasty and dangerous myth.
The religious nuts have had a couple of thousand years to do so, but have yet to produce a single scintilla of credible evidence for the existence of their supernatural entity.

Since: Aug 09

Location hidden

#17356 Mar 29, 2013
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
What are the examples of similar situations from Scripture?
I didn't ask that.

I asked, basically, if you have problems with couples employing modern reproductive techniques that work around fertility problems in one or both of the couple in order to allow the couple to raise children that are at least partly brought from their own DNA.

I would appreciate a sincere answer.

As far as your question goes, I can think of at least four individuals who were written of as having been incarnated by way of non-standard means. These are Adam, Eve, Melchisedek and Jesus.

Moses, naturally born of Levite parents, was adopted as an infant and raised by the Pharoah's daughter within the Pharoah's family. In another story, Naomi, a Judean, accepted her daughter-in-law, Ruth, a Moabite, as her own daughter. She adopted Ruth as an adult of about 20-25 years old. Adoptive practices then apparently weren't really any different than they are today.

Rev. Ken

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#17357 Mar 29, 2013
Vick Torre wrote:
<quoted text> Watch some news. That's why now. Thr religious saying marriage is about producing children. Yep,that's what the hetero crowd yells into TV cameras.(
The religious are not the only ones.

Science says that at the most basic essence, marriage is a cross cultural constraint on evolutionary mating behavior.

ss couples are not.

Smile.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#17358 Mar 29, 2013
Vick Torre wrote:
<quoted text> It could have said "pools of life". Easy to understand. DNA was mapped out competely. Hear about binary code in math of zeros and ones? Infinate combinations according to mathematics,of just 2 numbers. DNA has 4. And discovered it has memory to learn to adapt to environment as to why a diverse variety of species over millions of years. Whereas the bible-nine of were around to witness. Anyone could write anything during the "writings" over the given time period. Keep trying yo convince us. God I tried finding for 50yrs. Nothing. God will have to reach me then. Would'nt take much trouble. Since he's powerful,all knowing etc. What miniscule effort for him to induce a dream in me or some message. Then he'd have another devoted follower.
Unbigoted people would say 'from the dust of the earth' is close enough. And profoundly distinct from other accounts of creation until science caught up.

God is trying to reach you. I'm one of those He sent.

Smile.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#17359 Mar 29, 2013
Vick Torre wrote:
<quoted text> Watch some news. That's why now. Thr religious saying marriage is about producing children. Yep,that's what the hetero crowd yells into TV cameras.(
That response doesn't address your question about childless married people being equated to a barren and completely desolate relationship.

Again, the rare exceptions have never been a problem.

Smile.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#17360 Mar 29, 2013
Barry Bali wrote:
The bible is only a work of ( ancient ) fiction and no reliance can be placed on anything written therein. Jesus is most likely a myth, and the god of the old testament is a nasty and dangerous myth.
The religious nuts have had a couple of thousand years to do so, but have yet to produce a single scintilla of credible evidence for the existence of their supernatural entity.
Billions of people have disagreed with you for thousands of years.

And in spite of knowledge increasing, millions of intelligent people still do.

You, on the other hand, want to convince others that anal sex is not inherently harmful, unhealthy and demeaning.

Or that a duplicated half of marriage is the same thing.

I see where the problem is for you...

Smile.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#17361 Mar 29, 2013
RevKen wrote:
<quoted text>
I didn't ask that.
I asked, basically, if you have problems with couples employing modern reproductive techniques that work around fertility problems in one or both of the couple in order to allow the couple to raise children that are at least partly brought from their own DNA.
I would appreciate a sincere answer.
As far as your question goes, I can think of at least four individuals who were written of as having been incarnated by way of non-standard means. These are Adam, Eve, Melchisedek and Jesus.
Moses, naturally born of Levite parents, was adopted as an infant and raised by the Pharoah's daughter within the Pharoah's family. In another story, Naomi, a Judean, accepted her daughter-in-law, Ruth, a Moabite, as her own daughter. She adopted Ruth as an adult of about 20-25 years old. Adoptive practices then apparently weren't really any different than they are today.
Rev. Ken
And I was in the process of giving you a sincere answer.

My point is, how does the Bible guide us in the answer to your question. You gave some excellent answers.

Another example is Hagar, mother of Ismael, as a surrogate mother. As is the Levitical law allowing a dead man's brother to extend his legacy with the widow.

The only issue that some of those examples expose is the creation of three living 'parents', and the conflict that often ensues.

I suspect your goal is to excuse ss couples. As I have noted before, I find it criminally abhorrent to deliberately birth a child without a father and mother.
Vick Torre

Baltimore, MD

#17362 Mar 29, 2013
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
That response doesn't address your question about childless married people being equated to a barren and completely desolate relationship.
Again, the rare exceptions have never been a problem.
Smile.
Quite the imagination there. But expected from a person believing in untruths. Childless couples are not having barren lives. Family experience shows that. Then the couples I know do not want children and are sterile. I've been with these people over the years and no sign of barreness.
Vick Torre

Baltimore, MD

#17363 Mar 29, 2013
Barry Bali wrote:
The bible is only a work of ( ancient ) fiction and no reliance can be placed on anything written therein. Jesus is most likely a myth, and the god of the old testament is a nasty and dangerous myth.
The religious nuts have had a couple of thousand years to do so, but have yet to produce a single scintilla of credible evidence for the existence of their supernatural entity.
Totally agree!
Vick Torre

Baltimore, MD

#17364 Mar 29, 2013
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
The religious are not the only ones.
Science says that at the most basic essence, marriage is a cross cultural constraint on evolutionary mating behavior.
ss couples are not.
Smile.
So is adultry a cross cultural evolutiinary mating behavior. How you miss that? Sexual orientation does'nt mean being monogomous or not. Human nature regardless if culture. Science shows that. History channel had a series on human sexuality. I watched it. What you claim does'nt match. Divorce at 48%. Then the married couples that just live together because too much financisl loses brings that percentage higher among unhappy married heteros. Then there is a TV show called divorce court because its become so common. Smiles!!
Vick Torre

Baltimore, MD

#17365 Mar 29, 2013
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
Unbigoted people would say 'from the dust of the earth' is close enough. And profoundly distinct from other accounts of creation until science caught up.
God is trying to reach you. I'm one of those He sent.
Smile.
That's like being in court to give a testimony that's close enough. Facts baby,facts. Since believers say the bibull is truth,why hide facts? Since nothing from gid,I seek truth by way of discovery of what exists. This is the basis of science. And my method of finding god. No person has convinced me. I don't deal with "middle salesmen" because humans lie or believe in things because of self-convincing. Like I said, god wants me,let him do it directly by dream or angel or answering one prayer. God would know you would'nt convince me. Nice try.
Vick Torre

Baltimore, MD

#17366 Mar 29, 2013
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
That response doesn't address your question about childless married people being equated to a barren and completely desolate relationship.
Again, the rare exceptions have never been a problem.
Smile.
You asked "Why now"and I answered it. That IS addressing the question.
Vick Torre

Baltimore, MD

#17367 Mar 29, 2013
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
So you are saying that the Bible should have said 'amino acids'. Something no one would understand for thousands of years until only the last 100?
Sorry, when you are the only gender, gender is not considered. Moreover, marriage in the Bible heralds back to that very idea when it describes the man and woman becoming one.
Keep trying.
Smile.
Man and woman becoming one! HAH! Never seen that anywhere in history. Man and woman never become one. Can't divorce yourself,can't live if the man or woman dies, there would be no such thing as a widow.
Vick Torre

Baltimore, MD

#17368 Mar 29, 2013
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
So you are saying that the Bible should have said 'amino acids'. Something no one would understand for thousands of years until only the last 100?
Sorry, when you are the only gender, gender is not considered. Moreover, marriage in the Bible heralds back to that very idea when it describes the man and woman becoming one.
Keep trying.
Smile.
Man and woman becoming one. I guess that's the she-males ad a result. Smiles.

Since: Aug 09

Location hidden

#17369 Mar 29, 2013
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
And I was in the process of giving you a sincere answer.
My point is, how does the Bible guide us in the answer to your question. You gave some excellent answers.
Another example is Hagar, mother of Ismael, as a surrogate mother. As is the Levitical law allowing a dead man's brother to extend his legacy with the widow.
The only issue that some of those examples expose is the creation of three living 'parents', and the conflict that often ensues.
I suspect your goal is to excuse ss couples. As I have noted before, I find it criminally abhorrent to deliberately birth a child without a father and mother.
I will excuse the minor misconception. Hagar was not a surrogate mother. She was the slave girl chosen by Sarai to provide legacy offspring to Abram because she, Sarai, had been infertile. Hagar was made another wife to Abram by Sarai's suggestion and consent; technically, polygamy. After becoming pregnant, Hagar made the mistake of openly considering herself to be Sarai's superior.

...

I asked, basically, if you have problems with couples employing modern reproductive techniques that work around fertility problems in one or both of the couple in order to allow the couple to raise children that are at least partly brought from their own DNA.

I would appreciate a sincere answer. Your answer above avoids the question.

...

You also wrote, "I suspect your goal is to excuse ss couples. As I have noted before, I find it criminally abhorrent to deliberately birth a child without a father and mother."

You suspect?... I don't excuse anybody, including you. I have already openly stated my conditional support for same-sex unions.

Your statement is a very broad, negative swipe at reality. What would you have people do? Abort the fetus every time it becomes apparent that one or the other or both biological parents cannot or will not participate in the rearing of the child; to be followed by penal incarceration of the non-participting parent?

From the perspective of the Constitutional Republic, which is the Federal nature of our state, same-sex unions should be allowed. From the perpective of spiritual righteousness, it is a subjective and personal declaration of marriage made by the couple to each other before God, over which neither you nor I have any legitimate say, other than to recognize. You are incapable of objectively making any such judgment or choice for them.

As a priest, I am given the right and power in the Spirit to bless their union. You are certainly right in saying that Mosaic Law made no such written allowance for such blessing. But, I am not bound by Mosaic Law. I am bound by responsibility in the Spirit after the Order of Melchisedek as a disciple of Christ Jesus.

Your statement that any such union is to be regarded as "criminally abhorrent," is simply a matter of your own personal opinions. Likewise, it is my opinion that such views are unfounded, hypocritical and bigoted. I base my views on modern medical, genetic and psychological science, all of which have come to see human relationship and sexual orientation as a matter of normalcy across a broad spectrum of expression.

I do not condone incest. I do not condone sexual relationship with animals. I do not condone pederasty or pedophilism or sexual relationship between adults and minors, children, as a matter of lawful conduct. Such behavior in my opinion, is destructive and is generally a result of serious psychological sickness. Even so, there are certain human cultures where this behavior is considered to be normal and is apparently not destructive. I regard promiscuity as personal behavior that is physically, psychologically and spiritually potentially unhealthful. Yet, there is evidence in other species of the Great Apes that promiscuity is not destructive at all.

The truth is that we still have much to learn about ourselves.

Rev. Ken
Vick Torre

Baltimore, MD

#17370 Mar 29, 2013
Also regarding hetero parents, listed in the newspaper for negligence of child support. Long list to. So having a father +mother in those cases are not good for a child. Various methods of protection available. They don't give a damn about the life they initiated. Could'nt be bothered to use protection. Then the child is born unto a single parent home. Or aborted or given up for adoption. Where are their religious values? Then the abused children that have 2 parents in one home. Shows that religions stance that the best environment for children weakens. Basically-" not one size fits all". Too many variable family dynamics to apply "one size fits all". Flexibility is better.
Join Free

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.

Episcopal Church Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Christine Wicker: Learning to Talk About God an... (Sep '10) Mon True Christian w... 30
News What Charleston looks like, a year after the Dy... Jun 20 Adonay 1
News Female Deacons: Pope Francis Walks It Back, Wom... May 30 Julie Chance 6
News Pope's zero tolerance for pedophiles faces test... (Mar '15) May '16 Gods r Delusions ... 4
News Exploring the Queerness of Christianity with Ep... May '16 In Gods we Trust 4
News Methodists Trying to Avoid Church Split Over Ga... May '16 Logic Analysis 3
News Pope Francis' new 'Joy of Love' exhortation won... May '16 Michael 5
More from around the web