It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Does the bible condemn homosexuality?

page: 13
2
<< 10  11  12    14  15  16 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 18 2008 @ 05:10 PM
link   
reply to post by pause4thought
 


It would be nice if some of you folks could put down your bibles long enough to adress my points. But no! It's all about you and the twisted silly little verses you find based on faulty translations to back up your own biggotry. I provide a refrence to a book written about this same issue, but have any of you bothered to read it, or even skim it? No. The fact is you don't care, and you are content with the status quo wich is bad translation, translated in a way to prop up this same biggotry you now use...And even with the proper translation, it's still and antiquated mess of stories and history of a people written by....M A N. Much of the translations over the years lost the original meaning and like the ink blot test, it's all rather subjective anyway. The validity and reliability issues with the bible are staggering, yet you people sit on here and post back and foth for multiple pages arguing about "god's law says...", and "it is written in markalukajohny 10:34kl;a3"33 !" as though it holds some greater meaning beyond silly brainwashed little minds!

Everytime I read this stuff from the bible thumpers it makes me feel so icky, like I just fell into an open porta-potty sewage pit. It's unproductive. It's hatefull. It's exlusionary. It ignores the greater problems humanity faces. It is incredibly deceptive because it's based on bogus and false translations in the first place from a book fraught with problems and contridictions...and I could go on and on and on, but does it matter? No, the religious right wingers will continue to believe, then go vote for the crooks who dupe them all in the name of god and the freakin' bible, and then turn around screw everyone right in the sitter, and yet you continue to think these aren't the real sodimites in our culture? Unbelievable!




posted on May, 18 2008 @ 05:11 PM
link   
reply to post by skyshow
 


just wanted to say that u'r signature quotes r awsome..havent figured how to set those up my avitar and stuff yet....lol



posted on May, 18 2008 @ 05:13 PM
link   
reply to post by skyshow
 


what book let me backtrack to locate the link i'd be happy to check it out...and just so u know.. i think i'm pretty much on u'r side on this..
that is if anyone is reading my posts.. i jumped on this one as i missed the other ones..

[edit on 18-5-2008 by scorand]



posted on May, 18 2008 @ 05:19 PM
link   
reply to post by skyshow
 


amen and halliluya to ya ..i know i didnt spell that right.. lol



posted on May, 18 2008 @ 05:21 PM
link   
reply to post by scorand
 


McNeill, J. J. (1993). The Church and the Homosexual (4th ed.) Boston, MA. Beacon Press.



posted on May, 18 2008 @ 05:25 PM
link   
reply to post by scorand
 


True, and Jesus didn't mention it. So it wasn't all that important an issue with him.



posted on May, 18 2008 @ 05:49 PM
link   
reply to post by skyshow
 


thx skyshow



posted on May, 18 2008 @ 06:00 PM
link   
reply to post by Howie47
 



They think that the 10 commandments and all it's underlying laws, are the highest law that ever was or every will be. Jesus showed a much greater and truer light then Moses.


Yes he did - because he loved God and His Law, which reflects His moral perfection. Christ rejoiced in it and kept it from the heart.

Earlier someone said the Law of God was not perfect. I'm not even going to bother looking who said it - it makes no difference.


The law of the LORD is perfect, restoring the soul;
The testimony of the LORD is sure, making wise the simple.
The precepts of the LORD are right, rejoicing the heart;
The commandment of the LORD is pure, enlightening the eyes.
The fear of the LORD is clean, enduring forever;
The judgements of the LORD are true;
They are righteous altogether.
They are more desirable than gold, yes, than much fine gold;
Sweeter also than honey and the drippings of the honeycomb.
Moreover, by them Your servant is warned;
In keeping them there is great reward.


Psalm 19:7-11

Hallelujah! (Sorry, I can't hold it in)


Here comes a prophecy concerning Christ and what made him tick:


Your throne, O God, is forever and ever;
A scepter of uprightness is the scepter of your kingdom.
You have loved righteousness and hated wickedness;
Therefore God, Your God, has anointed You
with the oil of joy above your fellows.

Psalm 45:6&7

Are you actually suggesting Christ loved righteousness and hatred of wickedness but didn't experience the joy that all God's people experience when reading, meditating on and seeking to live out God's Law?

If the Law is perfect why was anything new needed? Because we couldn't keep it. Not until the Spirit came in power into the lives of Christians following the resurrection of Christ!


What the law could not do since it was limited by the flesh, God did. He condemned sin in the flesh by sending his own Son... as a sin offering...



The word "lawlessness", (iniquity KJV) is used to try and communicate a
spiritual ideal to carnal man. A better definition for iniquity is wickedness.


Let's avoid a dispute about words and get straight to the heart of the matter: does the N.T. teach that Christians love and keep God's commandments?

I offer this quote from a substantial interdenominational work:


...no doubt can remain that in Romans 13:9 Paul provides us with concrete examples of the law which love fulfils, showing thereby that there is no incompatibility between love as the controlling motive of the believer's life and conformity to the commandments which the law of God enunciates.

IVP Bible Dictionary


The commandments:

You shall not commit adultery
You shall not murder
You shall not steal
You shall not covet

and if there is any other commandment-all are summed up by this: You shall love your neighbour as yourself.

Romans 12:9


The conclusion is inescapable that the precepts of the Decalogue have relevance to the believer as the criteria of that manner of life which love to God and our neighbour dictates... When Paul says that "love is the fulfilling of the law" (Romans 13:10) it is obvious that the commandments appealed to in the preceeding verse are examples of the law in view. But by the words "and any other commandment" he intimates that he has not enumerated all the commandments.

The distinction is, therefore, that 'the law' is the generic term and the commandments are the specific expressions. Hence, although the apostle John does not speak in terms of fulfilling the law, the emphasis placed upon the necessity of keeping and doing the commandments (1 John 2:3-4; 3:22&24; 5:2&3) is to the same effect. And when he writes that "whoever keeps his word, in him truly love for God is perfected (1John 2:5), he is pointing to what he elsewhere defines as that of which the love of God consists, namely, that "we keep his commandments". The sum is that the keeping of God's commandments is the practical expression of that love apart from which we know not God and our Christian profession is a lie (cf. 1 John 2:4; 4:8).

IVP Bible Dictionary

Contrary to what people assume even the ten commandments forbid homosexual acts - the commandments are just the headlines. Thus Jesus explained that by hating someone you break the commandment not to murder and by lusting in the heart you break the commandment not to commit adultery, for example. Do not commit adultery simply means sex outside marriage is forbidden by God. The details were clarified in the books of the law, which specifically mentioned some of the specifics just to clarify this.

Jesus upheld this view. He said that what comes from the mouth originates in the heart, and reveals its sinful state (Matthew 15:18) This includes all manner of "evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, sexual immoralities, thefts, false tesimonies, blasphemies..." (Matt. 15:19). 'Sexual immoralties' are all sexual acts outside male-female marriage, which is the universal testimony of the Old and New Testaments.

It is false to claim this was not an important issue to Christ. He taught that repentance from all such things were a prerequisite to entering the kingdom of God.



posted on May, 18 2008 @ 06:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by marg6043
As usual like any other thread that has to do with controversial issues in relation to the morality of humans and the bible this leaning into preaching.

That's I think anyone wants to do, but if you look at the thread title and the arguments for versus in the context of the arguments, it is, as would be expected.


While the bible doesn’t condemn homosexuality, it does condemn fornication,


Your point is? Fornicating man with woman is sin but man with man is ok?



Paul in “Romans 1" talks about un natural acts, but what Paul refers here are the worshiping of Idols ( man ) rather than God, this could be call “lust” this is when fornication comes into play.


Umm No that's not quite right marge and reading the verse in its context without adding the other one in, you would see that he is talking sex



Paul does not specify what that unnatural sexual conduct is, but it is something not natural for those that have made sex their God.


The reason paul doesn't specify what is unnatural was not so people who had a bent for that kind of thing could see it as an ambiguous statement making excuses for their brand of unnatural sex. People become selectively stupid when it comes to this kind of argument but it doesn't fool anyone and comes off the same as when Bill Clinton answered "that all depends on what you mean by sex" When asked if he had sex with Monica Lewinski. This was the President of the United States and a very well read intelligent guy with a law degree. Now suddenely he wants to play stupid sexual semantics with the meaning of sex as if what he did wasn't really sex forcing them to have to be more specific which only proved to establish what they were trying to ask all along and being sex as they know it was all along.

The reason paul is not specific is with what sex is unnatural is for the same reason. He assumes we know the anus is by the nature of its design, an exit only orifice. We know that is how nature intended it. The Female Male sex act resulting in children is naturally how nature intended it. We know this is true because to falsify the argument is so hard to do. You won't hear many people coming up with spun logic why male to female sex is not the way nature intended it God made it whatever.

Paul knew enough about this type of sinner that he knew enough NOT to offend his listeners with graphic anatomical descriptions of the sphincter and its primary function. Not that the words explaining all that would offend but insulting their intelligence does as the OP does.



As the case of of pederasty that was widely practiced in those times.


Yeah sin was going on back then as it is today



Also historically heterosexual men were engaged into sexual acts against other heterosexual mens as a mean of humiliation after battle.


The Bible doesn't make exceptions for traditions or rituals no more than God would for stealing if that was done for the same tradition or ritual.

It's moot



As we know sodomy were also used forcibly on women throughout history during rape.


And, that too is done today, just as it was back then and is against the law

Worshiping God first unconditionally, any other way of worshiping was sinful.


And still is

- Con

[edit on 18-5-2008 by Conspiriology]



posted on May, 18 2008 @ 06:20 PM
link   
sorry but nowhere does it state that marriage is male female only...except maybe newer books.. but that just means that what most support is false testimony...is it not??? is that not twisting the scripture? or even flat out changing it to suit? the bible was compiled to how they understood it at the time.. our understanding has grown, so i feel it should be from cover to cover investigated to figure out how to separate dogma from the word, and before i get called out for that statment.. let me state the church has done this on many occasions. and changed what was written according to what they thought was right..



posted on May, 18 2008 @ 06:31 PM
link   
and lets not forgett adultery is cheating on u'r mate.. even in thought... and we already went through what paul was talking about when he said this.. as being not like the romans who were cheating on their wives/husbands with extramarital affairs. with both sexes..he was describing that it didnt matter what sex u cheated with it was still wrong to cheat...



posted on May, 18 2008 @ 06:40 PM
link   
reply to post by skyshow
 


Hi again.

I'm afraid your tirade at the top of this page against those who keep quoting the Bible is, er, somewhat out of place.

Please re-read the title of this thread...



posted on May, 18 2008 @ 06:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by scorand
sorry but nowhere does it state that marriage is male female only...except maybe newer books.. but that just means that what most support is false testimony...is it not??? is that not twisting the scripture? or even flat out changing it to suit? the bible was compiled to how they understood it at the time.. our understanding has grown, so i feel it should be from cover to cover investigated to figure out how to separate dogma from the word, and before i get called out for that statment.. let me state the church has done this on many occasions. and changed what was written according to what they thought was right..



Here we see it again, someone like your suggesting, being selectively ignorant, so much so that one needs the act of being one in flesh and all the talk about who begat this person who then begat that person etc. This post would have us believe what is meant by this is Abraham begat scat and elijah was born, not of a mothers womb but some guy bowels. The idea is absurd and so is your playing dumb about it. Do you think these people really believe they meant men marrying men? Is that what you think? Or is this really about the same game that goes , since he didn't say mariage with men than it must be ok.

I also see a lot of posts saying the bible has so many versions and blah blah blah when those using that argument invariably have not read all the so called versions if they read any at all. MOST of time you see a new "version" or translation, it is rarely the actual scriptures but concordance or additional hebrew aramaic translations that apply to specify context. For example the Bible refering to the circle of the earth where many Atheists use this to insult but fail to see the hebrew word didn't have an equivalent to globe or 3d round thing like a orb. Not the best example off the cuff but I think you understand.

I have read countless Bibles, Latin Vulgate Septuagent KJ Gideons, The Book of Mormon etc the JW watch tower publication, etc.

Their is only ONE Bible and most Scholars and Theologians use the standard King James as the Benchmark Bible as the one all others should be compared to. It has been so exhaustively tested for accuracy and the old english not withstanding, matches the dead sea scrolls almost verbatim.

The Bible clear about the OP

Gay is Nay

- Con





[edit on 18-5-2008 by Conspiriology]



posted on May, 18 2008 @ 06:56 PM
link   
reply to post by skyshow
 


And THAT IS the problem YOU ignore the bible, and thus set your own flawed standards.

It's another thread discussion to consider if the bible is indeed the word of God.
1 Author God, with 40 wirtters inspired by God.

2 Timothy 3:13-17 (Amplified Bible)

13But wicked men and imposters will go on from bad to worse, deceiving and leading astray others and being deceived and led astray themselves.

14But as for you, continue to hold to the things that you have learned and of which you are convinced, knowing from whom you learned [them],

15And how from your childhood you have had a knowledge of and been acquainted with the sacred Writings, which are able to instruct you and give you the understanding for salvation which comes through faith in Christ Jesus [through the [a]leaning of the entire human personality on God in Christ Jesus in absolute trust and confidence in His power, wisdom, and goodness].

16Every Scripture is God-breathed (given by His inspiration) and profitable for instruction, for reproof and conviction of sin, for correction of error and discipline in obedience, [and] for training in righteousness (in holy living, in conformity to God's will in thought, purpose, and action),

17So that the man of God may be complete and proficient, well fitted and thoroughly equipped for every good work.







[edit on 18-5-2008 by Blue_Jay33]



posted on May, 18 2008 @ 07:04 PM
link   
reply to post by pause4thought
 


The only way the law of Moses was perfect. Is that it exposed men to be sinners, which brings them to the Lord for Salvation. If you think the written law of Moses is perfect in it's entirety. Then you are indeed simple
minded. The correct translation is (converting the soul), not restoring the soul.
Psalm 45:6-7 Thanks for the verse that confirms we're talking about
wickedness and not lawlessness. Spiritual insight verses carnal minded legalistic perspective.




If the Law is perfect why was anything new needed? Because we couldn't keep it. Not until the Spirit came in power into the lives of Christians following the resurrection of Christ!


You should stick to quoting scripture. That's got to be one of the dumbest things you've said yet. We still have our sinful nature. That we must wrestle against. Even with the H. S. we are still all together found worthy of hell. It is only by God's grace that we stand and the hope of salvation that we rest in.




I offer this quote from a substantial interdenominational work:
I'm sorry that is just to funny. Let us stick to our own knowledge of God's words, and not resort to argument by authority.
Unless such material has exact relevance to the discussion. Which I don't
see in your quotes.





It is false to claim this was not an important issue to Christ. He taught that repentance from all such things were a prerequisite to entering the kingdom of God.


It is not false to claim that Jesus never mentioned homosexuality, because he didn't. Yet he did mention all the rest specifically.
We won't fully enter into the Kingdom of God, until were dead. "flesh and blood, cannot enter into the kingdom of heaven." We can by grace achieve
a certain level of peace, comfort and joy in this life. By Grace. Not by the
laws of Moses, "which neither we, or our brothers, in the past, could keep.
What would you say to Kind David, hundreds of wives and concubines, and a man after God's own heart. King Solomon the same. Every great personality in the Bible. Men and women of faults, that found grace in the eyes of the Lord.
If you want to separate yourself from the world, live as a eunuch, so you
can wholly dedicate yourself to the Kingdom of Heaven. That is your privilege. To judge and condemn others who don't do the same. Is not!



posted on May, 18 2008 @ 07:18 PM
link   
couldnt have said it better people seem to think that the church is infallible...sorry god is infallible.. and though the orginal work was divinely inspired man has used it for his own purpose...thus the confusion surounding this topic... and its the scholors and theologens who r starting to state that the KJV is loaded with mistakes, and mistranslations.. and proveing it .. thus we r supposed to seek the truth.. jesus himself said we were supposed to

[edit on 18-5-2008 by scorand]



posted on May, 18 2008 @ 07:23 PM
link   
reply to post by Conspiriology
 


how can it be so when there is much to prove what was said...however now whos practicing seletive ignorance

[edit on 18-5-2008 by scorand]



posted on May, 18 2008 @ 08:44 PM
link   
reply to post by scorand
 


or r u just saying that the church is all about propagation and not love..



posted on May, 19 2008 @ 01:04 AM
link   
I may be stupid, but do the opposers in this thread think it is correct to kill all gay people? Because of a mistranslation? To condemn and accuse people who are infact without sin? He who has no sin may judge in this matter and set people free from ending up in Hell which is what we are supposed to do. Some of us actually work day and nite to pull condemned souls out of Hell. We may not like what they do, but they have a right to life and it's better to be a living dog, than a deaf lion.



posted on May, 19 2008 @ 02:13 AM
link   
reply to post by Neo Christian Mystic
 



...and if the blind guide the blind, both will fall into a pit."

Jesus in Matthew 15:14b

What you are engaged in does not change the fact that you are preaching a false Gospel. The Gospel of Jesus Christ is "Repent and believe for the kingdom of Heaven is at hand". You are teaching a Gospel of "Continue in sin and believe".

Perhaps someone should start a church for practising adulterers too?

I am not being facetious. I know this issue is the cause of huge struggles for many. But Christ frees from the power of the sinful nature that drives people to sex outside marriage.

www.conservapedia.com...

The Holy Spirit enables all who are truly Christ's to live a holy life. That is what the Bible teaches.



new topics

top topics



 
2
<< 10  11  12    14  15  16 >>

log in

join