Homosexuality and the Bible...

[Dr. Khan]

So why should we follow social ideals which were formed thousands of years ago?

May I also add that homosexuality is the only crime that is considered immoral by most Chrisitians today which causes NO HARM to anybody.[/QUOTE]
You don't have to follow the spirit of the bible, you can form your own ideas and do just about what ever you want. But as for me and my house we shall certainly follow the Spirit of the Lord.

I am neutral a man or woman can live as they please. But please allow me to reject your ideas when they differ from what i have learned from the bible. It is old and getting older since Jesus said heaven and earth shall pass away but not my (his) word. I believe thatif you read Jesus you will realize that he wants everybody to change; there is surely something wrong with all of us.

 

[linwood]

seeking approval from man will do him no good if he is wrong about a God that he cannot see.

But our lives are not yet lived solely in the spiritual realm (If they ever are).

The fact is that homosexuals do indeed need if not the approval at least the acceptance of their fellow man/woman or they will never be given the rights they are entitled to.

Jusitice is justice and should be a concern for all whether god is involved or not.

 

[Dr. Khan]

If you can quote the Bible at me, can I quote fictional books at you? We're bound to have the exact same effect on each other.

You're lying. The scriptures always have an effect upon you regardless of whether or not you believe it or realize the word of go is a sharp two edged sword piercing even to the dividing asunder of the soul and the spirit and the joints and the marrow and is a discerner of the thoughts and the intentions of the heart. No fictional book will ever have that effect. Heaven and earth shall pass away but not the Words of Jesus. :woohoo: :tsk:

 

[Steve]

Far be it for me to interupt the theist bashing..... but I might have a "straight" answer:

From Catholic Answers www.catholic.com
"...some have argued that moral imperatives from the Old Testament can be dismissed since there were certain ceremonial requirements at the time—such as not eating pork, or circumcising male babies—that are no longer binding.

While the Old Testament’s ceremonial requirements are no longer binding, its moral requirements are. God may issue different ceremonies for use in different times and cultures, but his moral requirements are eternal and are binding on all cultures.

Confirming this fact is the New Testament’s forceful rejection of homosexual behavior as well. In Romans 1, Paul attributes the homosexual desires of some to a refusal to acknowledge and worship God. He says, "For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. Their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural, and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in their own persons the due penalty for their error. And since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God gave them up to a base mind and to improper conduct. . . . Though they know God’s decree that those who do such things deserve to die, they not only do them but approve those who practice them" (Rom. 1:26–28, 32).

Elsewhere Paul again warns that homosexual behavior is one of the sins that will deprive one of heaven: "Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God" (1 Cor. 6:9–10, NIV).

All of Scripture teaches the unacceptability of homosexual behavior. But the rejection of this behavior is not an arbitrary prohibition. It, like other moral imperatives, is rooted in natural law—the design that God has built into human nature.

For the record.... I can't say that I agree with this, but.... it's an answer.
You may now resume your mockery.

I think that answer you provided is very good SOGFPP
The issue of this thread is Homosexuality and the Bible, its clear what the bible says about it.
From here people can choose weather or not the belive the Bible, im not sure how what the Bible actually says about this issue can be argued though.

 

[Pah]

You're lying. The scriptures always have an effect upon you regardless of whether or not you believe it or realize the word of go is a sharp two edged sword piercing even to the dividing asunder of the soul and the spirit and the joints and the marrow and is a discerner of the thoughts and the intentions of the heart. No fictional book will ever have that effect. Heaven and earth shall pass away but not the Words of Jesus. :woohoo: :tsk:

"You're lying" is a harsh and not something to be used in religious Forums

 

[Pah]

I think that answer you provided is very good SOGFPP
The issue of this thread is Homosexuality and the Bible, its clear what the bible says about it.
From here people can choose weather or not the belive the Bible, im not sure how what the Bible actually says about this issue can be argued though.

It is absolutely not clear and that has been discussed time and time again.

 

[linwood]

From here people can choose weather or not the belive the Bible, im not sure how what the Bible actually says about this issue can be argued though.

It`s a matter os perspective.

You choose to think of the Bible as "A Book".
I choose to think of the Bible as "Numerous Books" because technically thats what the Bible is.

When you think of it this way it`s not hard to see differences of intent between the different books.

What does the word "Bible" mean anyway?

 

[Steve]

I think that answer you provided is very good SOGFPP
The issue of this thread is Homosexuality and the Bible, its clear what the bible says about it.
From here people can choose weather or not the belive the Bible, im not sure how what the Bible actually says about this issue can be argued though.

It is absolutely not clear and that has been discussed time and time again.

If someone wants to know what the Bible says about a particular issue then they should read what it has to say about that particular issue. If they disagree with what they find then fine they disagree but dont then go and say what the Bible says about that particular issue is unclear.
The verses that SOGFPP posted make it clear what the bible says to anyone who really wants to know. Nowhere will you find it saying Homosexuality is ok, but in many places it condemns it. Now like i said you may disagree with what it says but dont pretend what it says is unclear.

It`s a matter os perspective.
You choose to think of the Bible as "A Book".

I choose to think of the Bible as "Numerous Books" because technically thats what the Bible is.
When you think of it this way it`s not hard to see differences of intent between the different books.
What does the word "Bible" mean anyway?

I know full well that its a number of books. What does that have to do with what this collection of books has to say about Homosexuality?
You show me which books of the Bible say its ok and ill show you which say it arnt, deal?

 

[Pah]

If someone wants to know what the Bible says about a particular issue then they should read what it has to say about that particular issue. If they disagree with what they find then fine they disagree but dont then go and say what the Bible says about that particular issue is unclear.
The verses that SOGFPP posted make it clear what the bible says to anyone who really wants to know. Nowhere will you find it saying Homosexuality is ok, but in many places it condemns it. Now like i said you may disagree with what it says but dont pretend what it says is unclear.

I would like to know how "clear" it can be when the term homosexual was not used in the time of the wiriting of the Bible - that the practise of homosexuality was not the same practise today - that other cultures practised sex in their temples and this was what was being proscribed. Now, you tell me Steve, what is the history and the practice of homosexuality in those days? And make sure your historical facts have a one-to-one correspondence with today's practises - THEN you can tell me it's clear

 

[Steve]

I would like to know how "clear" it can be when the term homosexual was not used in the time of the wiriting of the Bible - that the practise of homosexuality was not the same practise today - that other cultures practised sex in their temples and this was what was being proscribed. Now, you tell me Steve, what is the history and the practice of homosexuality in those days? And make sure your historical facts have a one-to-one correspondence with today's practises - THEN you can tell me it's clear

Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.
Furthermore, since they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, he gave them over to a depraved mind, to do what ought not to be done. Romans 1:26-28

Do you needs pictures to understand what this is talking about? How could the Bible make it any clearer? This dosnt use the term homosexual, granted, instead it describes it! "...men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men... "
This isnt talking about temple practice's its talking about shameful lusts, it even says it!

 

[Pah]

Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.
Furthermore, since they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, he gave them over to a depraved mind, to do what ought not to be done. Romans 1:26-28

Do you needs pictures to understand what this is talking about? How could the Bible make it any clearer? This dosnt use the term homosexual, granted, instead it describes it! "...men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men... "
This isnt talking about temple practice's its talking about shameful lusts, it even says it!

So.... you are having trouble with ...

I would like to know how "clear" it can be when the term homosexual was not used in the time of the wiriting of the Bible - that the practise of homosexuality was not the same practise today - that other cultures practised sex in their temples and this was what was being proscribed. Now, you tell me Steve, what is the history and the practice of homosexuality in those days? And make sure your historical facts have a one-to-one correspondence with today's practises - THEN you can tell me it's clear

 

[Mister Emu]

In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.

This is quite obviously not referring to homosexuality, the keen mind can tell it is truly speaking of cupcakes. Man's natural relations with women are, of course, recieving cupcakes, and everyone knows that the indecent acts that one can commit while enflamed with lust for another man all involve the making and giving of cupcakes.

Also, I believe everyone here is in agreement with me when I say that male to male cupcake relations deserve the most severe punishments imaginable.

 

[Steve]

I would like to know how "clear" it can be when the term homosexual was not used in the time of the wiriting of the Bible - that the practise of homosexuality was not the same practise today - that other cultures practised sex in their temples and this was what was being proscribed. Now, you tell me Steve, what is the history and the practice of homosexuality in those days? And make sure your historical facts have a one-to-one correspondence with today's practises - THEN you can tell me it's clear

As i mentioned the term has nothing to do with it! Instead It describes the practice, this is better than using a term. Are you saying that this isnt clear because it dosnt describe where the act is taking place? It tells us why, "shameful lusts".

Now, you tell me Steve, what is the history and the practice of homosexuality in those days?

Sure, its when women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones and when men abandoned natural relations with women and are inflamed with lust for one another. Then Men committed indecent acts with other men.

Besides it dosnt really matter what the history and the practice of homosexuality was in those days, preciously because it dosnt use a term to define the practice, it describes the practice and the practice it describes is what we now know as homosexuality. There is no confusion about what its talking about because it tells us with a discription rather then use a term for it.
Men are not to abandoned natural relations with women and become inflamed with lust for one another this leads to Men committed indecent acts with other men. I dont know what the author could have written to make it clearer, If the author wanted this to be clearer what more should have been included?

 

[Pah]

As i mentioned the term has nothing to do with it! Instead It describes the practice, this is better than using a term. Are you saying that this isnt clear because it dosnt describe where the act is taking place? It tells us why, "shameful lusts".

If you knew the history of homosexuality you would see that that is NOT the homosexuality of that time.

Sure, its when women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones and when men abandoned natural relations with women and are inflamed with lust for one another. Then Men committed indecent acts with other men.

Define "unnatural" for women. Show me where it says specifically oral and anal sex for men

Besides it dosnt really matter what the history and the practice of homosexuality was in those days, preciously because it dosnt use a term to define the practice, it describes the practice and the practice it describes is what we now know as homosexuality. There is no confusion about what its talking about because it tells us with a discription rather then use a term for it.
Men are not to abandoned natural relations with women and become inflamed with lust for one another this leads to Men committed indecent acts with other men. I dont know what the author could have written to make it clearer, If the author wanted this to be clearer what more should have been included?

It certianly matters because it DOES NOT describe the culture and practise of homosexuality of the time. You might start by telling us what the culture is today - what understanding you have for homosexual practise.

 

[Steve]

Define "unnatural" for women. Show me where it says specifically oral and anal sex for men

I guess this is could be considered your answer to my question "If the author wanted this to be clearer what more should have been included?"
Do you really need to see it described in that sort of detail? I actually am really starting to wonder if you expect/need pictures to understand what this its talking about?

Like i said befor history really does not matter in this situation, we have a discription of what it is talking about and while it may not go into enough detail for you im sure anyone who actually really wants to know what the bible says about the issue will soon get the idea, It is not some vague term that is presented here, we dont need a history lesson to understand a particular term and how that term was used to get to what the author is depicting in this passage.

 

[Pah]

I guess this is could be considered your answer to my question "If the author wanted this to be clearer what more should have been included?"
Do you really need to see it described in that sort of detail? I actually am really starting to wonder if you expect/need pictures to understand what this its talking about?

Like i said befor history really does not matter in this situation, we have a discription of what it is talking about and while it may not go into enough detail for you im sure anyone who actually really wants to know what the bible says about the issue will soon get the idea, It is not some vague term that is presented here, we dont need a history lesson to understand a particular term and how that term was used to get to what the author is depicting in this passage.

Again you avoid a specific response

 

[Steve]

I guess this is could be considered your answer to my question "If the author wanted this to be clearer what more should have been included?"
Do you really need to see it described in that sort of detail? I actually am really starting to wonder if you expect/need pictures to understand what this its talking about?

Like i said befor history really does not matter in this situation, we have a discription of what it is talking about and while it may not go into enough detail for you im sure anyone who actually really wants to know what the bible says about the issue will soon get the idea, It is not some vague term that is presented here, we dont need a history lesson to understand a particular term and how that term was used to get to what the author is depicting in this passage.

Again you avoid a specific response

No i actually showed why your request was irrelevant and provided my reasoning.

 

[Pah]

No i actually showed why your request was irrelevant and provided my reasoning.

Okay, Steve, whatever you say - but I'm disappointed in your arguments

 

[linwood]

I know full well that its a number of books. What does that have to do with what this collection of books has to say about Homosexuality?
You show me which books of the Bible say its ok and ill show you which say it arnt, deal?

Leviticus specifically condemns homosexual acts as the greatest of abominations..twice.

Then other books go on to allow them to happen between some of the greatest Biblical heroes there are with no retribution or punishment.

Thats my point about the Bible being many books.
They don`t always seem to agree amongst themselves.
The book doesn`t speak consistently of homosexuality.

Have a look at this thread.

http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/showthread.php?t=3561