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: 19
2
<< 16  17  18    20 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 27 2008 @ 07:23 AM
link   
reply to post by Neo Christian Mystic
 



Pharicee or priest would adress him with being a rabbi. Rabbis must marry, just like Jewish priests.

I remember reading about this in Holy Blood, Holy Grail, years ago.
I read this, as a new release at the library, then had to buy a copy.
I find their argument of Jesus being married to be very believable.
I do not see why people have a problem with accepting it.
Paul does seem to have a certain antagonism towards the man, Jesus.
Paul seems to be a big fan of the Spirit Being, Jesus, in heaven.
Paul seems to be adverse to a lot of the sticky aspects of being human.
I guess Paul was celibate.
You notice what Paul does to show his respect to the Jewish religion?
He pays for the offerings require for these young men who were taking Nazarene vows.
Part of being Nazarene is being celibate.
With all the possible choices of things that Paul could have done to prove to the Jewish community that he still believed in the Law, why did he pick this law?


[edit on 27-7-2008 by jmdewey60]




posted on Jul, 27 2008 @ 01:15 PM
link   
A nazarean is only in celibate during his education. When he has finished studying he might marry and have children. Normally such a person would be finished with his studies in five to ten years.



posted on Jul, 27 2008 @ 01:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by jakyll
reply to post by darkelf
 





Why do people want to focus on just one thing that is condemned in the Bible. This is starting to sound like a broken record. It's not the people, it's the acts.


True.
But some cannot differenciate between the 2.




It's always funny to see your type. "It's not the people it's the acts" BS! Either you hate the guy for what he does or you accept it. And the Jewish God accepts homofilia with the sex and everything, except when it is done the way the Torah discribes it. To lay the layings of woman refers to a hethen custom involving men having public ritual sex with other men. In the towns where they held these rites they tried to rape angels, men, and they could rape these innocent people to death. Read the book it's all there. Just add a littlle contemporay knowledge and you see. The bible doesn't talk about homophilia at all, except for in the story of David and his male lover.

In Secret Mark a supposed cencored part of the Gospel of Mark, Jesus sleeps naked with Lazarus (also naked and just risen from the dead) just like a man would sleep with a woman.

[edit on 27/7/2008 by Neo Christian Mystic]



posted on Jul, 27 2008 @ 03:48 PM
link   
reply to post by Neo Christian Mystic
 


On the previous page you set your own opinions above the teachings of an Apostle, whom you clearly disdain. Now you shamelessly blaspheme Christ himself. And you continue to proclaim yourself a Bible teacher.

Enough said. It's clear to all. Your teachings are not Christian.



posted on Jul, 28 2008 @ 01:11 AM
link   
post removed because the user has no concept of manners

Click here for more information.



posted on Aug, 28 2008 @ 05:36 PM
link   
reply to post by Neo Christian Mystic
 


You said "Conclusion: The bible does not condemn homosexuality..." True, the 10th commandment (which we know to be the set of laws that man is to follow) reads......

Exodus 20 [17] Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, NOR HIS ASS, nor any thing that is thy neighbour's. [emphasis placed] King James Version - (quod.lib.umich.edu...)

It's quite clear that you shall not covet (long, or crave for) thy neighbour's ass but it says nothing about actually poking around in it.



posted on Sep, 9 2008 @ 11:52 AM
link   
deleted by self; realized it served no purpose.

[edit on 9-9-2008 by Bombeni]



posted on Sep, 12 2008 @ 11:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by pause4thought
reply to post by Neo Christian Mystic
 


On the previous page you set your own opinions above the teachings of an Apostle, whom you clearly disdain.


An apostle? Oh, you refer to the self-proclaimed apostle, none other than the Pharicee Saulus, who later called himself Paulus who through dubious means has occupied most of NT?


Now you shamelessly blaspheme Christ himself.


Love your neighbour (be it a gay or straight one) like you love yourself. Maybe you would end up in denial and hate yourself if you were gay. But I surely wouldn't. And if they don't receive you, wipe the dust of your shoes and walk out the way you entered. I haven't really done this in respect to you and your sectlike bretherns here at ATS when it comes to the literal controversies in the Bible. You and your bretherns refuse to drink from the source, but continue to proclaim the dead water spilled out by homophobe churchfathers, kings and JW etc. who obviously avoid this debate for any cost. Did you know the Bible says Adam was a hermaphrodite until God made Eve? God had originally intended us for tranny sex. That's something you can add to your list of things you hate with the Word you hold so dearly. And David had a homosexual encounter. And like I said, a book refered to as Secret Mark, by many said to be a hoax because of it's contents, discribes how Jesus has a bit of a, well, cozy nap with Lazarus.



And you continue to proclaim yourself a Bible teacher.


I've never called myself or wanted to educate my self into a teacher. Much less a Bible teacher. I'm everything but a teacher, I'm here to woop your teachers' arses for misleading people like you to decide who is your neighbour and who is not. But if you feel I am a teacher, feel free to live out your fantacies, I won't stop you.


Enough said. It's clear to all. Your teachings are not Christian.


Wrong, I base my "teachings" as you call them on direct translations from the oldest MSs we have. I don't like the idea of echoing anything, either religious, political or ideological. It only brings around ignorance and terror. I need evidence or strong indisia in order to proclaim a theory to the truth. Unlike you.



posted on Sep, 12 2008 @ 11:33 AM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Sep, 12 2008 @ 12:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by Bombeni

 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 






Dr. Love, Please reply:

Is this comment in the post above mine considered ok? I'm just trying to get the new guidelines straight, so help me out here.

"God had originally intended us for tranny sex"

Oh and this too: Jesus has a bit of a, well, cozy nap with Lazarus.

I need to know if this is considered baiting.

[edit on 12-9-2008 by Bombeni]



posted on Sep, 12 2008 @ 12:46 PM
link   
Still waiting to hear on my inquiry above. My post was deleted within minutes, but my inquiry remains unanswered still.



posted on Sep, 12 2008 @ 04:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by Fromabove

The word "thief" is also discriptive. Homosexuality in any of it's variations is repulsive to God and is sinful. If there were an exception for homosexual relationships, it would have been stated in the scripture, but it isn't.


You know what else isn't stated in the scripture:


Thou shalt not lay with womankind as one would with mankind


Seems like lesbians are off the hook


Or is the Bible only for men?



posted on Sep, 13 2008 @ 03:43 PM
link   
Good point. Lesbian sex isn't mentioned in the bible. Is it then legal if male homosexual sex isn't? Seems quite strange that homosexuality is only prohibited for men.



posted on Dec, 10 2008 @ 03:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by Lucid Lunacy

Originally posted by Fromabove

The word "thief" is also discriptive. Homosexuality in any of it's variations is repulsive to God and is sinful. If there were an exception for homosexual relationships, it would have been stated in the scripture, but it isn't.


You know what else isn't stated in the scripture:


Thou shalt not lay with womankind as one would with mankind


Seems like lesbians are off the hook


Or is the Bible only for men?


You must be a dude then. Try reading that same scripture as if you were a WOMAN and you'll see it means the same thing.



posted on Dec, 10 2008 @ 03:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by darkelf
The Bible does not condemn homosexuality. It condemns homosexual acts as well as any other sexual act outside of marriage. It condemns these acts for Jews (OT)and Christians (NT). It also condemns a lot of other things. Why do people want to focus on just one thing that is condemned in the Bible. This is starting to sound like a broken record. It's not the people, it's the acts.


You don't make sense when you say it doesn't condemn homosexuality but it does condemn homosexual acts then I guess it is safe to say it really does condemn homosexuality because we wouldn't have the word without the act. This is splitting hairs as you know everyone here that is arguing a reason why the Bible doesn't condemn homosexuality, does so because they are practicing homosexuals who intend to stay that way and hate the harsh judgment they feel and think the Bible is largely to blame as the reason such harsh judgement exists.



posted on Dec, 10 2008 @ 03:24 PM
link   
reply to post by Neo Christian Mystic
 


Could you please post a link to a reputable Science journal that says there is a gay gene and that they have isolated it,until then don't interject your personal opinion as fact...



posted on Dec, 10 2008 @ 05:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by Lucid Lunacy
reply to post by Conspiriology
 


I see even after pages upon pages of beating the Sodom and Gomorrah story to death, you still don't understand the point.

Rape transcends sexual orientation. When the townsmen wanted to rape the men/angels that was not homosexuality. They were lusting after the prospect of raping them. The fact that you still cannot make the distinction between rape and consensual sex worries me deeply about your overall sense of moral and ethical issues at large.

Come on man, we beat that one to death already.

[edit on 013131p://17u08 by Lucid Lunacy]


That's pretty funny lucid, considering that some people have rape fantasies as their sexual orientation and don't bother with the new Gay way of defining the word Orientation, the fact is you are dead wrong thinking they were lusting after the prospect of raping them the reason it would have been rape is because it was NOT consensual sex and the reason why is because they were MALES they wanted to have what with ??

SEX that's what.

What about the females lot offered them?

Nope, they didn't want them they wanted the males.




Rape transcends sexual orientation.


transends? you almost sound like you are making it virtuous but assuming you are meaning what I hope you do, then yeah you got that right, it is downright wrong. Homosexual rape?

An Abomination and the reason word for this most popular practice of the homosexual sex was named after the city destroyed for this kind of immorality. Sodomy and that city sodom of course.

You also mentioned you are Bi-sexual so doesn't that make you half homosexual? Obama is half white but everyone says he is black. Not half Black but just Black. If you want to claim the rights of homosexuals being so oppressed the same way it was for those with race should we not call Obama Bi-Black? I know, silly but then again so is someone arguing they are insulted for being called gay if they are Bi.

I doubt seriously, you'll see the common sense in that however



posted on Dec, 10 2008 @ 05:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by Neo Christian Mystic
Good point. Lesbian sex isn't mentioned in the bible. Is it then legal if male homosexual sex isn't? Seems quite strange that homosexuality is only prohibited for men.


Yes it is, they just don't use the word lesbian but like so many have already proven here with so much effort, I really couldn't care less if you understand the Bible correctly or not when it is so obvious you have no intention of understanding. I won't argue with people like that much less the reprobate



posted on Dec, 10 2008 @ 06:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by The Nighthawk

All this over a book written by primitive men trying to create a society where they would be in charge. There's nothing "holy" about the Bible. It's a book of myths, astrology, and so-called "laws" handed down from "God" through "Prophets" and such. Seriously, if someone today, right here in the modern world, declared they were a "Prophet" and spouted all kinds of new "laws" God wanted us to follow, would you believe him?

Or would you have him committed to the loony bin?

Be honest.


I suppose you are right and I am also surprised this post wasn't removed for being off topic. The debate is "Does the Bible condemn Homosexuality" Not what is your opinion of books written by men" and the reason you don't like reading those kind of books.

Must be hard to learn a thing or two when ya think about that.





Considering your assertions of homosexuality as a choice are scientifically incorrect, and that it is a genetic factor the same as race, calling it "wrong" is tantamount to bigotry. That's a painful thing to hear and I'm sure you'll refute it wholeheartedly, but I for one am convinced by the Science. Homosexuality IS Genetic. If you consider homosexuality "wrong" you are guilty of racism, same as if you said black or hispanic people are "bad" by nature of their birth.


You are convinced by the Science?

If I take a plug and stick it into a socket the light goes on I now can see what is before me. I take a plug and try to stick it in the back end of another plug, I stay in darkness and and blind to what is right infront of me. The Science in this regard is unequivocally the same as it is in biology, it is in the scriptures. It is symbolic in this way when you consider the biological male plug gets inserted into the female socket you get life Gods greatest gift to you and the light of the universe the very essence of what holds the entire universe together the reason the protons keep circling the nucleus.

Like the above poster asked where is this science you speak of and what does it have to do with the Bible condemning homosexuality



posted on Dec, 10 2008 @ 06:53 PM
link   
the distinction between ritual and moral sins is interesting, i was not aware of that etymology. thanks!

on a more practical level: The Bible condemns a lot of stuff. That doesn't keep good churchgoing folk from eating pork sausage for breakfast. i imagine few christians say the she'ma daily as Christ advised.

The way I see it, most people who invoke relatively minor scriptural details to condemn the behavior of others would have a hard time justifying why they think certain passages are more important than others (that is, other than the fact that some hatemonger told them so from the american idol tv pulpit).



new topics

top topics



 
2
<< 16  17  18    20 >>

log in

join