jump to last post 1-29 of 29 discussions (169 posts)

What does the Bible say about homosexuality?

  1. Freegoldman profile image59
    Freegoldmanposted 5 years ago

    Is it a sin?

    1. Ms Dee profile image86
      Ms Deeposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Here is a quick lookup for you:

      1 Timothy 1:9-11
      9 We know that the law is not meant for a righteous person, but for the lawless and rebellious, for the ungodly and sinful, for the unholy and irreverent, for those who kill their fathers and mothers, for murderers, 10 for the sexually immoral and homosexuals, for kidnappers, liars, perjurers, and for whatever else is contrary to the sound teaching 11 based on the glorious gospel of the blessed God that was entrusted to me.

      1 Corinthians 6:8-10
      8 Instead, you act unjustly and cheat—and this to brothers! 9 Do you not know that the unjust will not inherit God's kingdom? Do not be deceived: no sexually immoral people, idolaters, adulterers, male prostitutes, homosexuals, 10 thieves, greedy people, drunkards, revilers, or swindlers will inherit God's kingdom.

      So, what do you think this is saying?

      1. A Troubled Man profile image60
        A Troubled Manposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        While the author of that enlightening verse places homosexuals in the same category as murderers, it would seem fairly obvious based on the caveat quoted above, they can deem whoever and whatever they please as being sinful, which is pretty much what we observe from fundamentalists anyways.

        1. Jerami profile image77
          Jeramiposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          What the verse you speak of seems to be saying to me, that most people WANT to forget is that one sin is no greater than another.   Disobedience by ANY name is disobedience.

              Which raises a question which I have always pondered.

              The Kingdom of God (?) I don't think is the same thing/place  as heaven or paradise.

             Kingdomness (playing webster here) to me would be reffering to those in authority.  Those being governed are not of the kingdom but mearily the dirt that the wagon rolls over. 
             Thise thought just poped into my head, Not thought out very long.
          Not a good anology here ..  so don't judge me or it; please.

            Sooo  Homosexuals nor any other sinner gets to preside as judges or any other position of authority in the Kingdom.

             If you notice ....   at the end of the book of Revelation. ater all is said and done, ...  after the New City comes down to the earth, ...  after everyone is thrown into the lake of fire , ...   there are still all sorts of sinners outside the gates of the city.
             The gates are never closed but nothing which defileth may enter the city.

              It seems to me that those outside the city had been redeemed from the lake of fire, but not allowed within the innercircle or kingdomship which lies at the center of heaven.

          1. A Troubled Man profile image60
            A Troubled Manposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            The point is that the author of the verse is judging others and reserves the right to judge others at their whim and for whatever reason they deem appropriate.

            Is the sin of adultery the same as the sin of murder? Is not one a greater sin than the other?

            1. Jerami profile image77
              Jeramiposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              That is not what your scriptures say.

            2. Ms Dee profile image86
              Ms Deeposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              No, all sin is the same. No one sin is worse than another. Also, the scripture verse is saying what it is God deems right and wrong.

      2. livelonger profile image88
        livelongerposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        It sounds like you're reading an English translation of the original Greek quotes by Paul (not Jesus Christ, you know that, right?)

        Since homosexual as a term is a relatively new one, which words did Paul use?

        In 1 Corinthians, he used "malakoi". In 1 Timothy, he used "arsenokoitai". So, not even the same word in Greek, but King James and English evangelicals ever since have been translating it to the same word: homosexual.

        What does "malakoi" mean? It literally means "soft." It does not mean effeminate or gay (that would be "kinaidoi"). In modern Greek, it means "masturbator", which, as you know, is certainly not exclusive to gay people.

        As for "arsenokoitai": Martin Luther thought it also meant "masturbator." It literally means "man beds" so it is ambiguous. It might have meant male prostitutes, which were common at the time, but this is only speculative.

        So, what do you think Jesus meant when he said this?

        Matthew 19:11-12

        "11 Jesus replied, “Not everyone can accept this word, but only those to whom it has been given. 12 For there are eunuchs who were born that way, and there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by others—and there are those who choose to live like eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. The one who can accept this should accept it.”

        Who are "eunuchs that were born that way" and why doesn't Jesus condemn them?

      3. lamarkyoung4 profile image61
        lamarkyoung4posted 5 years ago in reply to this

        From what I have read in my bible as well in what you have written is that we must not think one person sin is greater than than another but as explain plain as day to night God expect and commands us to obey all his laws and not the ones we choose to.

      4. calpol25 profile image75
        calpol25posted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Mary Magdeline was a prostitute and Jesus stopped people condemning her, by saying let he who is with out sin cast the first stone.... Is any one here with out sin?

    2. Wayne Tully profile image58
      Wayne Tullyposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Who cares?

    3. Jerami profile image77
      Jeramiposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      What does the Bible say about homosexuality?

        Is it a sin

         I think this relates ...  I am reminded of the story when a father asked two sons to do some particular thing.
         
        One son says  "Sure Thing Dad"  then he doens't do it.

        The other son says "NO Way, I ain't goina do it!!!!!"  but then he goes on and does it.

         Which sone was most respectfull to the father?

      1. 0
        Brenda Durhamposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Not the one who tickled the father's ears just to get him off his back, but the one who re-thought his position and decided to do the right thing after all.   In other words, the concepts of free will and repentance/forgiveness all rolled into one.
        Good point Jerami, good Scripture reference.

    4. Ms Albert profile image60
      Ms Albertposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Well, I have to admit that this question tickles my fancy.  For all you hardcore immovable Christians out there, did god make man in his own image?  Or did he just pick and choose?

    5. Greek One profile image79
      Greek Oneposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Homosexual sex is WRONG WRONG WRONG!!!

      (unless, of course, you are a church official and it is with an alter boy)

  2. Uninvited Writer profile image83
    Uninvited Writerposted 5 years ago

    Why don't you try and fine the 300 threads on this very subject...it has all been answered again and again and again and again...

    1. MelissaBarrett profile image61
      MelissaBarrettposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Too, true... but I bet you it gets an argument still.

      Someone needs to find something besides religion to talk about, that horse has been kicked to death on these forums.  Kicked to death, kicked after death, kicked while decomposing and now its bones are being trod upon.  You would think a group of writers would have SOMETHING new to talk about.

      1. 0
        Sherlock221bposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        I think the reason why this subject continues to appear on here, is the same reason why it is discussed ad nauseam in real life - because it really is something that matters to a lot ot heterosexuals, who feel a need to feel superior to someone, by demonising them.  Years ago, it was the red manace, now it is the gay menace.  Hopefully mankind will grow out of this need, although I can't see it happening anytime soon.

  3. TMMason profile image73
    TMMasonposted 5 years ago

    That it is an abomination and un-natural.

  4. TMMason profile image73
    TMMasonposted 5 years ago

    "11 Jesus replied, “Not everyone can accept this word, but only those to whom it has been given. 12 For there are eunuchs who were born that way, and there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by others—and there are those who choose to live like eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. The one who can accept this should accept it.”

    Eunichs who were born that way refers to those who are born sexually deficient, impotent etc...

    Those who were made that way by man is self explainatory.

    And those who choose, are they who choose celibacy for purity sake.

    No where does Christ accept homosexuality as natural and moral.

    And the use of Paul's multiple terms speaks to the fact that he is talking about all sexual depravity... not just the ones you or someone do not like, or like.

    All.

    1. livelonger profile image88
      livelongerposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      What is a eunuch as defined in the Bible?

      In Greek it means "bed keeper" - a man who does not reproduce and who is therefore entrusted with keeping a man's harem. Sometimes they were castrated, sometimes they were not.

      I would argue that, if Jesus said anything at all about gay people, it was in that verse, and it was simply to say they were exempt from a requirement to marry. No condemnation, no matter how much you and the other Christianists are hoping there is one.

      1. TMMason profile image73
        TMMasonposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Why would you ask what the bible considers a eunich, and then define it?

        And your assumption would be wrong. This verse is not speaking of homosexuals in any way shape or form. It is speaking of eunichs and sexually deficient individuals as regards marriage and God's command to marry and be fruitful on the earth.

        Not deviants or sexual immorallity.

        1. livelonger profile image88
          livelongerposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          Well, this is typical from you.

          Let's see what Ms Dee has to say.

          1. TMMason profile image73
            TMMasonposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            Christ would not contradict God.

            That is a fact... not something typical of me.

            God said over and over homosexuality is an abomination... man shall not lay with man... etc.

            To state what you want, is to place Christ in oppostion to God.

            And that is not the way it goes.

            Christ said that we as Christians should tolerate peoples bad choices and sinful ways.... not accept and practice those choices of sin as a natural thing and morally acceptable behaviour.

            1. livelonger profile image88
              livelongerposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              Didn't bother to read. You consistently misrepresent your opinion/interpretation as incontrovertible fact. It makes it pointless to discuss things with you. (Just an explanation why I'll do what so many others have done and stop responding to your replies)

            2. 0
              Emile Rposted 5 years ago in reply to this



              Mr. Mason, you are such a nice man. It really bothers me to see Christians make sweeping statements denying others the same rights to happiness that you insist for yourself. At no where in the gospels does Jesus clearly speak out against homosexuality. You and others within your faith are twisting words to suit an agenda.

              1. TMMason profile image73
                TMMasonposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                If you go back and read my post, Emile, I have not said he spoke on it. That would be the others here who try to use a verse that doesn't speak about homosexuality, to justify it as acceptable.

                And I base my religious opinion on it from the old testament, Emile. And God spoke to its practice many times... and condemned it in each one.

                So I would think you should go read the whole conversation, Emile. I am not the one who says christ spoke of it, to justify it, or condemn it.

                That would be livelonger and others... not I.

                And it is nice to see you. I hope you have been well.

                And I do not judge anyone for it... it is their choice.

                But that doesn't mean I have to propagate that it is natural and acceptable.

                And troubed... I do not judge the individual... I judge the act.

                Big difference.

                1. 0
                  Emile Rposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  It's nice to see you too. smile

                  Sorry.  You are correct, except that you do say that God says it is wrong and Jesus wouldn't contradict God.  It seemed to flow with your train of thought that you were saying he said it was wrong.

                  And, homosexuality is natural Mr. Mason, simply because people are born this way. Nature made them that way.  I know, I know, you might argue environment.  But I know people that are gay and it wasn't a choice, it is a simple fact of life.

                  I know you say you don't judge anyone, you judge the act; but you are sitting in  judgment. of the actions of others when you make those statements.

                  ATM had an excellent point.  It was the action of the prostitute that the crowd was judging.  And it was that action, by the crowd, that was being condemned by Jesus' words. 

                  When Christians make statments like this; how are your actions any different than the crowd on that street two thousand years ago?

                  1. TMMason profile image73
                    TMMasonposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                    No... they were condemning her for her actions.... not simply her actions.

                    I condemn the act... not the one commiting it.

                    I would not stone or harm anyone for living as they want to. But that doesn't make it right, nor would I tell them it is right. For in that I would be condemning them in another way, before God.

                    So no, ATM is off base.

                    Now if I said kill the gays for their act, then I would be condemning them. but I do not. i say the act is wrong... period. they are free to freely act in that way. but i do not have to embrace or accept it.

          2. Ms Dee profile image86
            Ms Deeposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            livelonger, I looked up Mat 19:12 in the Greek, and the same word for eunuch, eÇnoÂcoi, is used in both instances for those who were made eunuchs by others as those who were eunuchs from the womb since birth. When the verse is read through to the end, it becomes clear that the verse contains an explanation of some reasons why men do not marry.

            1. TMMason profile image73
              TMMasonposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              I believe she is wondering if you would understand this verse to include homosexuality under the, "born a eunich", exception.

              I am not sure why she wanted me to wait and see what you thought, ms Dee.

              But I would like to hear your opinion anyways.

              I do not see the refrence in this verse to include homosexuality. I also believe if it did it would be in direct contradiction to the word of God in the old testament, and that is impossible.

              1. Ms Dee profile image86
                Ms Deeposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                I agree, TMMason. 'eunuch' is not the same lexical item as homosexual. They have completely different definitions in the Greek. Yes, it would absolutely contradict the O.T. if 'homosexual' was used in this verse.

      2. Ms Dee profile image86
        Ms Deeposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        livelonger, you say in the other thread "I have, as have many other Jewish and Christian scholars far more conversant in Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek than I am."

        So, this makes me wonder here where you got 'eunuch' In Greek it means "bed keeper". What lexicon do you have that says this Greek word means bed keeper??  I'm wondering, because mine does not say this is the definition of the Greek word for eunuch.

        1. livelonger profile image88
          livelongerposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/eunuch

          eunuch, from the Greek eunouchos, from  eunē (bed) + echein (to have, have charge of)

  5. A Troubled Man profile image60
    A Troubled Manposted 5 years ago

    "Let the one among you who is without sin be the first to cast a stone."

    I wonder who said that?

    1. 0
      Emile Rposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Excellent point.

    2. 0
      Sherlock221bposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Don't bother to quote Christ's teachings to Christians.  They are the last people to let His words change their views.  I, as an atheist appreciate the words of Christ more than Christians I know.

  6. Mark Ewbie profile image83
    Mark Ewbieposted 5 years ago

    From the Book of Jobe - verse 11.3

    Let he who would be of the gay persuasion recall the words of the martyred St. Lucia (the second). It is not for us to judge, as many among us are probably already eyeing our neighbours ass.  It is easier for a rich man to pass wind through a needle than to gain entrance to the Hebrew Passion Club, Thursdays Men Only, half price for couples.

    Get down on it.

  7. earnestshub profile image87
    earnestshubposted 5 years ago

    To answer the OP, it depends on what part of the "good book" religionists want to quote from.

    When they want to condemn non-believers they use the OT, yet when they are challenged on the hateful disgusting words of the OT, everything quoted from the OT is "out of context, with all the killing being called "love" we just didn't understand it. Head up bottom disease I reckon.

  8. SilentReed profile image89
    SilentReedposted 5 years ago

    That New York has turned into a Sodom and Gomorrah ? smile smile

  9. 0
    Sherlock221bposted 5 years ago

    Well according to the Old Testament a man of such a persuasion shall be condemned to a life of exquisite taste in soft furnishings and fabulous footwear, that will be impossible for others to live up to.

    1. earnestshub profile image87
      earnestshubposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      lol You are obviously a keen student of scripture. smile

  10. IntimatEvolution profile image82
    IntimatEvolutionposted 5 years ago

    What does the true mosaic laws say about it in the old testament?  Is it part of the 10 commandments? 

    Timothy, Corthinians, etc., are part of the Pauline doctrine.  These epistles were written by a man.  Not God's hand.  Not the hand of Jesus either.  Just food for thought....

  11. 0
    Brenda Durhamposted 5 years ago

    As to the answer to the thread title question, (if it hasn't been definitively answered yet), the most definitive and firm sentence is
    Leviticus 18: 22:

    "Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind:  it is abomination".

    1. Ralph Deeds profile image69
      Ralph Deedsposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      On her radio show sometime prior to 2004, Dr Laura Schlesinger said that, as an observant
      Orthodox Jew, homosexuality is an abomination according to Leviticus 18:22,
      and cannot be condoned under any circumstance. The following response is an
      open letter to Dr. Laura, penned by a US resident, which was posted on the
      Internet. It's funny, as well as informative:





      Dear Dr. Laura:

      Thank you for doing so much to educate people regarding God's Law.

      I have learned a great deal from your show, and try to share that knowledge
      with as many people as I can. When someone tries to defend the homosexual
      lifestyle, for example, I simply remind them that Leviticus 18:22 clearly
      states it to be an abomination. ... End of debate.

      I do need some advice from you, however, regarding some other elements of
      God's Law and how to follow them.

      1. When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a
      pleasing odour for the Lord - Lev.1:9. The problem is my neighbours. They
      claim the odour is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them?

      2. I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in Exodus
      21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her?

      3. I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her
      period of menstrual uncleanliness - Lev.15: 19-24. The problem is how do I
      tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offence.

      4. Lev. 25:44 states that I may indeed possess slaves, both male and
      female, provided they are purchased from neighbouring nations. A
      friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not
      Canadians. Can you clarify? Why can't I own Canadians?

      5. I have a neighbour who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2.
      The passage clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated
      to kill him myself?

      6. A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an
      abomination - Lev. 11:10, it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality. I
      don't agree. Can you settle this? Are there 'degrees' of abomination?

      7. Lev. 21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a
      defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading glasses. Does my
      vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle room here?

      8. Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair
      around their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden by Lev.19:27.
      How should they die?

      9. I know from Lev. 11:6-8 that touching the skin of a dead pig makes me
      unclean, but may I still play football if I wear gloves?

      10. My uncle has a farm. He violates Lev. 19:19 by planting two different
      crops in the same field, as does his wife by wearing garments made of two
      different kinds of thread (cotton/polyester blend). He also tends to curse
      and blaspheme a lot. Is it really necessary that we go to all the trouble of
      getting the whole town together to stone them? - Lev.24:10-16. Couldn't we
      just burn them to death at a private family affair like we do with people
      who sleep with their in-laws? (Lev. 20:14)

      I know you have studied these things extensively and thus enjoy considerable
      expertise in such matters, so I am confident you can help.

      Thank you again for reminding us that God's word is eternal and unchanging.

      Your adoring fan,

      Anonymous

      1. livelonger profile image88
        livelongerposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Fortunately, many Jews pointed out what an utter hypocrite she was, and she eventually stopped practicing Judaism.

        http://www.forward.com/articles/7887/

    2. earnestshub profile image87
      earnestshubposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Like I have said before, old testament for abusing people new testament for the defending.

      Use the OT for the homophobia but if others quote the hate to point out the psychosis it is called "out of context"

      Have any of the homophobes here read anything other than the book of megalomania and hate?

  12. 0
    Brenda Durhamposted 5 years ago

    This thread's about homosexuality.
    If you want answers to those other questions, perhaps you should make threads about them.

    While you're at it, make one about the next verse, the one following the one I quoted (Leviticus 18: 23.)   Perhaps some people would be curious as to what excuse you might come up with for beastiality.

  13. 0
    Brenda Durhamposted 5 years ago

    As another poster pointed out, 1Timothy and Corinthians are both Books of the New Testament, earnest, not the Old even.   Both Old and New are valid.
    There is no defense for the liberal view of this subject.  There is, however, forgiveness upon repentance.  That hasn't changed and never will.  It's only the window of opportunity that's being steadily closed by those who sway willing minds toward rebellion.   The Lord said to seek Him while He can be found, earnest.

    1. earnestshub profile image87
      earnestshubposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      The point I was making is that the old and new are valid, only when they are being used to abuse, and are "out of context" no longer apply, have been replaced blah blah blah until they fit to be used as a threat to unbelievers when they are suddenly re-erected as applicable as in the scripture you quoted.
      The bits in the NT are interpreted depending on how much of a zealot is making the case.

      It's a pile I tells ya!

      1. 0
        Brenda Durhamposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        It's a pile alright; a pile of precious gems, nuggets of Truth that will enlighten the willing soul.

        As you surely know, God gave Peter a vision of the things that once were unclean but that He later cleansed, Spiritually, because they weren't relevant to one's soul; they were only rituals related to physical cleanliness, etc.    Nowhere does that list contain a cleansing of homosexuality nor the other sins of the heart.  However, it does indicate that concept that people often omit----forgiveness upon repentance for all sins, the Lord's mercy (while He may be found, while the heart isn't hardened against Him).....

        1. livelonger profile image88
          livelongerposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          Why are remarried Christians' hearts so hard, that they would ignore the Biblical commandment to reconcile with their first husbands/wives? Why are they so unwilling to accept this very clearly-worded commandment?

          1. 0
            Brenda Durhamposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            Why are you so intent on personally bullying and attacking me and anyone else who doesn't knuckle under your outrageous onslaughts?

            Make your thread, Jason.  I've seen people banned for hijacking threads, even when they did it unintentionally.  You're doing it intentionally and for an avenue to make personal attacks.  Why?   Do the rules of conduct here not apply to you?

            1. livelonger profile image88
              livelongerposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              Not a personal attack and not a threadjack. Sorry, Brenda.
              It's the truth of the Bible that applies to you that you find too terrible to bear.

              And yet, amidst all of your attacks on homosexuality and accusations against me, you still don't have an explanation about the Christian Bible's injunction against remarriage. Why do you keep on avoiding that?

              1. 0
                Brenda Durhamposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                But indeed I've explained it time after time.  You just weren't willing to listen.

                Make your thread.  This one's about what God said about homosexuality.   And although sometimes the two subjects may intertwine,  you quite obviously go over the line with your manipulation of the two.   One can use common sense and know when those two issues properly intersect.  Don't ya think?

                1. thebrucebeat profile image60
                  thebrucebeatposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  The reason the issue is relevant is it makes the concentration on gay issues arbitrary.  Why would these issues be more compelling than the great danger the unrepentent remarried soul is in?  Aren't there more of them than gay people?  Why should you turn your back on the remarried sinners and not do everything possible to keep this issue in the forefront of people's minds so they can unwind their sinful second marriages that prove their unrepentance?  The question is why focus on gays instead of this huge number of doomed souls that noone is reaching out to in Christian love to save?

                  1. livelonger profile image88
                    livelongerposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                    Exactly. Not even arbitrary, but a choice of convenience. Why not obsess about the singular sin that you're sure not to commit? How many men (and post-menopausal women) conveniently make anti-abortion the center of a morality debate, too?

    2. livelonger profile image88
      livelongerposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      There's no defense for remaining in a second marriage, either, Brenda. It was condemned several times in the new covenant. Praying, repenting, and singing countless hosannas are meaningless; you're supposed to return to your first husband:

      1 Corinthians 7:10-11: "And unto the married I command, yet not I, but the Lord, Let not the wife depart from her husband: But and if she depart, let her remain unmarried or be reconciled to her husband: and let not the husband put away his wife."

      Bitching and moaning about gay people just makes you look like one of those people pointing out splinters in others' eyes while ignoring the plank in your own.

      1. 0
        Brenda Durhamposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Make a thread about the issue of adultery if you wish, Jason, instead of changing the subject of this one.

        Or do you think you're allowed to attack me personally every time just because you're on staff?

        1. livelonger profile image88
          livelongerposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          I bring up divorce every time you bring up homosexuality, Brenda. Which is very, very, very often. You seem to like to focus on everyone else's sinful behavior but your own.

          It's entirely fair to bring up the rank hypocrisy and double standards of anti-gay but divorced and remarried Christians, who are many.

        2. American View profile image59
          American Viewposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          Brenda,
          Is livelonger on the staff of Hubpages?

          1. Woman Of Courage profile image60
            Woman Of Courageposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            I would like to know this answer also.

  14. 0
    klarawieckposted 5 years ago

    Aw... I miss Beelzedad! hmm

    1. earnestshub profile image87
      earnestshubposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Must have been telling the truth again and our lovely christians joined together to have him banned as they do with all who oppose them.
      Brave open hearted broad minded christian souls that they are

      If you are going to use a writers site to flog religion, I guess morals would be far too big an ask! lol

  15. 0
    Brenda Durhamposted 5 years ago

    Ah.  I see you changed your post to generalize it.  First, you attacked me personally.  Now you change it to a generalization, but still obviously pointed at me.  Hmmmmm.

    Make a thread about divorce/adultery, if that's what you want to talk about.
    This one's about homosexuality.   Are you perhaps done with talking about it?

    1. livelonger profile image88
      livelongerposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Maybe because cafeteria Christians won't participate in a thread that exposes something about the Bible they don't like?

      Again, it's entirely consistent with this thread to point out that the Christian Bible is ambiguous about homosexuality, but entirely clear about divorce and remarriage, and it's hypocritical of self-professed Christians to harp on the former and conveniently ignore the latter.

      1. 0
        Brenda Durhamposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        There's nothing ambiguous about the Bible's statements on homosexuality.   God condemns it in no uncertain terms. 
        However, as I've said time after time, ALL sin including that is forgiveable upon repentance, except for blasphemy against the Holy Ghost.
        Perhaps you'd like to consider making a thread about that one too.

        1. livelonger profile image88
          livelongerposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          So a gay Christian who repents but stays in a same-sex relationship is forgiven?

          I've written about how the Bible's statements supposedly about homosexuality are indeed ambiguous, but you didn't want to listen.

          1. 0
            Brenda Durhamposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            If he/she repented, they wouldn't stay in the relationship.
            On the flip side, it is not a sin to be in a heterosexual non-sexual relationship.  Nor is it a sin for heterosexuals to marry.
            Your view leaves no room for forgiveness, no hope for those who become involved in homosexuality; so they have to deny the Bible's words in order to try to condone their actions.  Congratulations, though, on being so politically-correct; that wave you're riding is filtering even to Israel's leader.  Last I heard him speak, he mentioned catering to the homosexual agenda, something no Bible-believing Jew would do.  Your agenda is very strong, I'll give you credit for that.   But not everyone is so easily swayed.  There are still a few of us left who believe in repentance and forgiveness.   And those, you nor anyone can force-feed into submission.

            1. livelonger profile image88
              livelongerposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              Started that tangential thread, Brenda:
              http://hubpages.com/forum/topic/80196
              Looking forward to your input.

              Amusing that you respect the opinion of (the minority of) Jews who clearly condemn homosexuality. You would probably not enjoy what they think of Christianity quite so much.

              1. 0
                Brenda Durhamposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                Perhaps not.  But God loves them too, and will reveal Himself to them at some point if He hasn't already.

  16. Paul Wingert profile image78
    Paul Wingertposted 5 years ago

    What does the Bible say about homosexuality? According to the discriminating bigot who wrote Leviticus 18: 23 says that it's a sin of some sort. Personally I think it's ridiculous that people in this day and age still take what some exiled Jew(s) wrote 2-3000 years ago to heart. Some go as far as saying it's the word of god. No. It's the word of whoever wrote it. Funny that we never see "Christians" condemning people who mow their lawns or wash their cars on Sunday.

    1. 0
      Brenda Durhamposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Fact check.  The 18: 23 verse is about beastiality.  I suppose you'd like to blame the Holy Spirit for making a rule against that too.

      1. Paul Wingert profile image78
        Paul Wingertposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Oooops, yeah you're right. I didn't have my evening coffee. I meant Leviticus 18:22 - Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is an abomination. Beastiality is more gross than a Biblical sin.

  17. earnestshub profile image87
    earnestshubposted 5 years ago

    What the bible says is irrelevant to living in the world today.

    The truth is a bunch of haters need something to support their irrational beliefs, so as nothing else will, they rely on the controlling crap written by a bunch of sexist goat herders 2,000 years ago.
    Yeah that makes sense doesn't it?

    Ignore the science that destroys these myths on a daily basis and declare goddunnit is a much better idea! lol

  18. Ms Dee profile image86
    Ms Deeposted 5 years ago

    Okay, well, this does not correlate with the Greek used in the N.T. which the Greek lexicon says for Mat 19:12 the word eÇnoÂcova, ou mean 'a castrated male person'. So I think you need to look at a lexicon for the Greek of the N.T. The Merriam-Webster dictionary is referring to classical Greek.

    1. livelonger profile image88
      livelongerposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Some eunuchs were castrated, some were not. What they all were were entrusted guardians of harems, because...they had no interest in women. The Greek word eunochoi in fact derives from the meaning "bed keeper" as I said before, not "without testicles."

      Now how does a person be born a eunuch? Are you suggesting that would mean someone was born without testicles? That almost never happens.

  19. livelonger profile image88
    livelongerposted 5 years ago

    In related news (since the APA was mentioned):

    "The world's largest organization of psychologists took its strongest stand to date supporting full marriage equity, a move that observers say will have a far-reaching impact on the national debate. The policymaking body of the American Psychological Association (APA) unanimously approved the resolution 157-0 on the eve of the group's annual convention, which opens here today."

    http://yourlife.usatoday.com/sex-relati … 49798054/1

  20. TMMason profile image73
    TMMasonposted 5 years ago

    @Troub and Live...

    That is BS.

    I have been through the studies, and some of the papers written on them.

    I have not said I have been through your google page of thousands of papers on those relatively few studies.

    You all do know the diference between a study and its findings... and the papers writen on those studies?

    Maybe you don't.

    And the APA says quite clearly what the science shows regarding gay genes.

    And guess what... they agree with me.

    As to the natural... show me a homosexual species that has existed past one generation on this planet.... I'll wait here.

    Why don't you two go do a study on it... get a couple gay guys place them in a closed system and see if they pro-create... see if they continue on in nature as naturally behaving species do.

    No... they won't, and see if you can figure out what causes their extinction while your there...

    Maybe their behaviour?... hint...

    Gimmie a break you all are so far out there it isn't funny.

    And lemme know your results... I'll write a paper on 'em, post it on google for you.

    Shit the Govt may give you a grant for your study if you ask them nicely.

    1. A Troubled Man profile image60
      A Troubled Manposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      This article doesn't agree with you or the APA.

      http://www.sciencenews.org/pages/pdfs/d … 801-15.pdf

      1. TMMason profile image73
        TMMasonposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        "That observation, combined with the fact that Odenwald and his colleague Shang-Ding Zhang produced the abnormal sexual behavior by manipulating the genes of the flies, garnered widespread media attention last month."

        Sure it does. It agrees with me fully in a round about way.

        Matter of fact I would say it proves it isn't natural. Or man would not have had to minipulate it to be so... nature would have allowed it naturally.

        Try again.

        See how that goes?

  21. TMMason profile image73
    TMMasonposted 5 years ago

    Then I respectfully suggest you go and read it.

    Oh here it is now..

    Definition of SYNCRETISM

    1: the combination of different forms of belief or practice

    2: the fusion of two or more originally different inflectional forms

    Syncretism, as defined by the American Heritage Dictionary, is “the reconciliation or fusion of differing systems of belief.” This is most evident in the areas of philosophy and religion, and usually results in a new teaching or belief system. Obviously, this cannot be reconciled to biblical Christianity.

    http://www.gotquestions.org/syncretism-religious.html

    Watering down my religion because you all do not like it is unacceptable. I hope you scream at Muslims for being too faithful?

    And of course we all know the Catholic Church and the Protestant Churches are guilty of this act today.

    1. 0
      Emile Rposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      What part of my statement did you fail to understand? I know what the word means. My statement and opinion remain unchanged.

    2. thebrucebeat profile image60
      thebrucebeatposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Would it be syncretism to accept the Bible regarding homosexuality but to reject the Fruits of the Spirit?  Would that be the creation of a new belief system?
      Discuss.

      1. TMMason profile image73
        TMMasonposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        And it is funny how you all think calling a man a homosexual is an insult, as inferred strongly from your jokes about McCarthy.

        Shows your true feelings for homosexuals.

        So?...

        Because I say you cannot live in a state of sin, homosexual life-style/relationship... and gain true repentance, I am in conflict with the bible.

        Not really.

        You have to try. You cannot just say, well gee God will forgive me, and not even try.

        That is the point.

        And God no where in the Bible tells us to accept the unnatural, immoral or other-wise unacceptable... as moral, natural, and accceptable.

        He tells us to tolerate... not accept, the sins of others.

        Big difference.

        1. thebrucebeat profile image60
          thebrucebeatposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          Are all conservatives humor-challenged?  What's funny about it is you screaming about homosexuals, when your hero is one of America's most famous closet cases.  That's the humor.  You just didn't get it.
          Isn't that my point, Mason?
          You don't even try to exhibit the Fruits of the Spirit.  You don't even make a weak attempt. You seem to think you can ignore them and God will forgive.  Don't you have to at least try?
          Why do you always leave that part of it out?  Always.
          See why I love your posts?  They're so easy!

          1. Greek One profile image79
            Greek Oneposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            the sexual tension between you two is palpable! tongue

            1. lizzieBoo profile image77
              lizzieBooposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              smile

            2. TMMason profile image73
              TMMasonposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              You seem to think I do not like Gay people.

              That should prove to you how wrong you are... if indeed you believe he was gay. I know he was far ahead of the curve in this country in his day, having a Gay, a black man and a woman as his aides... supporting Civil Rights while LBJ and the Democrats were blocking them in the Senate... but other than that, the rest is just supposition and rumor.

              And if it is true then you should show a lil respect for the gay people you insult by slinging it around as an insult.

              I think your the homophobe here... and your lil cohorts.

              1. Greek One profile image79
                Greek Oneposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                oh all you homosexual sympathizers are so sensitive!

            3. thebrucebeat profile image60
              thebrucebeatposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              +1
              LOL!

        2. 0
          Emile Rposted 5 years ago in reply to this



          By your own words you are in conflict with the Bible.  You say your God tells you to tolerate.  The definition of tolerate is

          1.permit something: to be willing to allow something to happen or exist

          2.endure something: to withstand the unpleasant effects of something

          3.accept existence of different views: to recognize other people's right to have different beliefs or practices without attempting to suppress them

          How exactly do your words fit any of those definitions?

          1. TMMason profile image73
            TMMasonposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            I thought you said you had read my words? You should see it then.

            I have said a thousand times I tolerate their behaviour, all are welcome to choose to act as they want. The only thing you cannot do is call something, something it is not.

            Appearently that makes you all mad.

            oh well.

            I accept the existence of it.

            I am willing to permit it.

            We as a Nation are enduring, withstand, the unpleasant effects of the homosexual agenda, and their behaviour, and the consequences which arise from it, as with any other unhealthy life-style.

            And as I said I recognize their right to act as they want and believe as they want. (even though smokers appearently cannot)

            But I don't accept their actions, choices, or life-styles as natural, moral, or accceptable.

            See the difference E? Probrably not.

            1. 0
              Emile Rposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              That would be sort of funny, if it wasn’t for the fact that you are serious. To tolerate is the law of your God, as you have said.  You live by the letter of the law.  Not by the spirit of it.

              Accepting of other’s beliefs and practices and recognizing their rights without attempting to suppress them. 

              Yes, I get it.  You appear to be having some difficulty.

              1. TMMason profile image73
                TMMasonposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                I have never said I live by the letter of the law and not the spirit... those are your words.

                And there is no opression, or suppression, or any other pression... E.

                They have their rights.

                1. 0
                  Emile Rposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  No, your lack of tolerance is evident from your words.  You show this every time you post on the topic. You aren't tolerant by any stretch of the imagination.

                  1. TMMason profile image73
                    TMMasonposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                    Actually it is the Left who is blindly intolerant of my views, and that of many Christians,  which worries me in this country.

                    You all seem to think we all need to think in lock-step. You all think we should be some great collective consciousness, and all have one frame of mind.

                    I say live an let live... but there is a natural order and when you step outside it, you do not get to claim your acts are natural or moral when by all historic and Natural standards, they are not.

                    Which also means your side doesn't get to indoctrinate children to dis-believe their parents teachings about things.

                    See how that works.

  22. TMMason profile image73
    TMMasonposted 5 years ago

    That would have been the, "not", just before your, "unaware".

    I just didn't see it sittin there, E.

    Sorry.

  23. TMMason profile image73
    TMMasonposted 5 years ago

    your funny.

    You do not like my spelling... oh well.

    An aberration is something that deviates from the normal way.

    1. thebrucebeat profile image60
      thebrucebeatposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      I'm not ignoring you.  Your poor logic skills, vocabulary and spelling are an endless source of entertainment.
      Not to mention your refusal to confront what by now you know is the truth about the lack of evidence in you for the indwelling of the Holy Spirit.
      I look forward to your posts.  If this was softball and you were pitching, the inning would never end!

  24. Greek One profile image79
    Greek Oneposted 5 years ago

    Say there Joe, I like you too... but would you mind putting that thing away and zipping up for me???

    http://www.wisconsinhistory.org/museum/exhibits/elections/images/1952_IkeMcCarthy47491.jpg

  25. Greek One profile image79
    Greek Oneposted 5 years ago

    Yes.. I got the condoms just like you asked..
    Geez, I can't want to play "hide the Commie" with you again, Senator..

    http://silentmajority09.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/mccarthy-and-cohen.jpg...


    and yet 3 weeks later..


    http://cdn.crooksandliars.com/files/uploads/2009/03/McCarthy_80e85.jpg

    The !@@#^@$^!@#^!# never even called me the next day

    1. Ralph Deeds profile image69
      Ralph Deedsposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Ha!Ha! Pretty funny.

    2. thebrucebeat profile image60
      thebrucebeatposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      +1
      LOL!!!

  26. thebrucebeat profile image60
    thebrucebeatposted 5 years ago

    Off to work.  Lob me another one, Mason.  I'll whack it later.

  27. knolyourself profile image61
    knolyourselfposted 5 years ago

    My philosophy was to give all sides. Is that acceptable?

  28. MrCharisma83 profile image59
    MrCharisma83posted 5 years ago

    God does not weigh sin against one another. To him, all sin is equal. We, as people, like to assign different categories for sin. And the funny thing is, the one quick to call someone out on their sin is sometimes, if not frequently, involved in much "worse" sins. it's that simple. Do I agree with homosexuality? No - not in particular - but I don't have a heaven or a hell to put anyone in. Meaning, I won't go around with a bullhorn telling people they are but a breath away from hell. I will, if asked, give my opinion on that lifestyle.

  29. Paul Wingert profile image78
    Paul Wingertposted 5 years ago

    If the Bible is worth anything, except to be used to stableize a table with one leg too short, it shouldn't say a damn thing about homosexuality!

    1. earnestshub profile image87
      earnestshubposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Well said Paul!!!!!!

 
working