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: 8
2
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 17 2008 @ 05:11 AM
link   
reply to post by Lucid Lunacy
 



A reoccurring theme with many Christians while attempting to prove The Bible is against homosexuals, is that they completely ignore the parts of The Bible, specifically the words of Christ himself, that support and encourage people to not judge, persecute or hate homosexuals, but rather to love, be compassionate towards and tolerate (acceptance). Don't think so?... hence my challenge.

**also, I am not taking into account what is in other threads for a reason. Please post key relevant things from those threads in this thread, so everyone reading this thread will see it and understand your points, instead of just redirecting the reader. I am trying to encourage the integrity of this threads discussion.

Is it really such an effort to click on two links?

Well here is the content of the first:


Westboro "Baptist" is not a church any more than the KKK is a Christian organisation.

True churches proclaim God's love and mercy toward all people, whatever their orientation. [bold added] While those who decide to follow Christ are called to abstain from all forms of immoral behaviour, whatever their orientation, their past is forgiven and gone. That is the teaching of the Bible, which is the basis of a true church. God accepts us, then renews us, then changes us.

I unreservedly apologise that there are people calling themselves Christians who proclaim hatred. They only serve to reinforce the misconception that the Bible, the Gospel or God Himself are somehow against a particular section of society. Christ was known as the 'friend of sinners'. That is what He was, and that is what He is. A FRIEND, not an enemy. And we're all sinners, including the people standing out there, who just don't seem to get it.

You may not agree with the Christian view, but don't confuse it with Westboro!

It's inevitable that these people, who dishonour the Good News of God's love, invite ridicule on themselves.

The second post includes this:


This is what I have been saying throughout. Nothing against the person. Just explaining the pattern laid out for Christians, some of whom have experienced homosexual attraction, but all of whom have accepted that it is more important to live God's way than to gratify sexual desire in a way that breaks his Law. Heterosexual Christians have accepted the same difficult path.

All sexual activity outside a male-female marriage is immorality. This was discussed at length in the threads mentioned on page 1 of this thread, for those wishing to consider the issue further.

In a reply to Conspiriology you said:

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.

The passage nowhere says Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed because of rape. The angels were sent to destroy it because of the immorality and perversions (as is proved conclusively by the O.T. passage itself and by the teaching in Jude that both I and Conspiriology have mentioned). Only when they actually turned up to extract Lot and his family before the destruction occurred was there any hint of the issue of rape.

You are trying to twist the plain meaning of both O.T. and N.T. Scriptures to fit your own agenda.




posted on May, 17 2008 @ 05:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by pause4thought
The passage nowhere says Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed because of rape. The angels were sent to destroy it because of the immorality and perversions (as is proved conclusively by the O.T. passage itself and by the teaching in Jude that both I and Conspiriology have mentioned). Only when they actually turned up to extract Lot and his family before the destruction occurred was there any hint of the issue of rape.

You are trying to twist the plain meaning of both O.T. and N.T. Scriptures to fit your own agenda.


So Sodom & Gomorrah 'bought it', so to speak, because of their immorality & perversions...good thing Lot was so righteous, you know all he did was have sexual intercourse with his two daughters. - but I know, God over looked that bit didnt he.


There is more going on than a tale of morality here...Sodom & Gomorrah 'bought it" for reasons beyond that stated. There are some ideas, but any conflict boils down to egoic stories of being 'right' and making the other 'wrong'.

This is why the apparent hypocrisy, as outlined above, is so easily overlooked by the 'righteous'.


Peace

dAlen



posted on May, 17 2008 @ 05:27 AM
link   
reply to post by The Nighthawk
 


Ah. Yes, You're right. I'm judging idiots that are too afraid to face up to their own weaknesses. I didn't say it wasn't genentic in some cases. So is addiction in many cases. Or a variety of other abnormalities. Pedophiles have the same argument. NAMBLA anyone? Why is this non-productive sexual deviation different? OK, say it's a "non-practicing" pedophile? It's still deviant and regarded as basically a threat by most groups. Thems the facts, sister. So yeah. I'm J-U-D-G-I-N-G. Based on several thousand years of previous works. What else do I have to go on?
If you're condemning any form of passing judement, look at yourself.

"Bigot - one who holds blindly or INTOLERABLY to a particlular creed belief, etc. "
I'll take the blind part, but not the intolerant part. I would never suggest that someone should be persecuted or sanctioned for their sexual preference. I wouldn't never use primitive terms like sin. BUT you won't get me to say that homo-stuff is condoned in the bible and isn't an abnormality. There's no fault or intent being leveled here. FACTS only.



posted on May, 17 2008 @ 05:38 AM
link   
reply to post by The Nighthawk
 


Wait. The more I read your response to my response the more annoyed I get. I didn't say any of the crap you said I said. (Sorry about that sentence...) And that's pretty blind, presumptuous and intolerant of you. Dare I say, also a form of bigotry?
The question was about the Bible. I answered it faithfully.
Jesus trumped alot of the old cut n' dried Hebrew law. I said that.
This wasn't about my personal opinion, though I threw some in because I'm tired of people trying to make the bible say gayness is OK. It doesn't, sorry.
I'm an alcoholic. I don't drink. I would never try to make some ancient writing support my infirmity as being normal. Even if I found one, I'd think it was stupid.
So hold up there Tex!! And don't go making assumptions. Gay Rights or Die is what I say, but that doesn't mean they aren't way outside the "normal" range.



posted on May, 17 2008 @ 05:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by djerwulfe

But take heart. Jesus said that you'll be judged by different criteria than ol' fire and brimstone Jehovah would've before. So you're fine.

[edit on 16-5-2008 by djerwulfe]



posted on May, 17 2008 @ 05:49 AM
link   
reply to post by dAlen
 


I actually think you raise some excellent points here.

The essential difference between Lot and the others was that he found forgiveness through God's grace. As you are aware, the same goes for Noah and his family, another major Biblical paradigm for how God operates in terms of judgement and grace. The same goes for all who find God's forgiveness: we are sinners like the rest, but who have trusted in God's ability to wash us from guilt through the sacrifice of the Messiah, who fulfilled all the types and symbols of the O.T. ceremonial laws and sacrifices. That is why the ceremonial Law was abrogated, while the moral Law - which reflects God's moral standards and holiness - stands.

Those of us who live by God's Law (although falteringly) do so from the heart, loving it and finding greater joy in living God's way than in fulfilling the desires of the flesh. This is purely to worship God, not to establish some feeble righteousness of our own, which we believe is accounted to us as a gift, through God's grace alone.


For by grace you are saved through faith, and this is not from yourselves; it is God's gift - not from works, so that no-one can boast

Ephesians 2:8&9

Just a final note: Lot committed the atrocity you mention after the destruction of the city. It was a) committed when he was drunk and b) instigated by his daughters. This does not justify what he did - far from it. It just goes to illustrate how "bad company corrupts good morals". It was not, however, his chosen way of life!

God prefers mercy over judgement. Judgement comes when people reject his laws and his mercy, i.e. their conscience, the moral Law of God and the Gospel.

I wish you God's blessing.



posted on May, 17 2008 @ 05:51 AM
link   
The bible states that anyone commiting a homosexual act should be stoned to death, it clearly condemns it. To the OP, you are in denial.

I do not agree with the bible but a homosexual attending church is just retarded. Sorry maybe they should create their own sect and remove more books from the bible such as the catholics have done.

Humans are good at removing things they do not agree with fact or not.



posted on May, 17 2008 @ 06:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by dAlen
So Sodom & Gomorrah 'bought it', so to speak, because of their immorality & perversions...good thing Lot was so righteous, you know all he did was have sexual intercourse with his two daughters. - but I know, God over looked that bit didnt he.


Sodom and Gomorra, Admah, Sebojjim and other cities in the ME were destroyed in the same way at the same time. They were all Ba'al centers, and they were concidered unrightious because of that. Lot and his family believed in Abraham's God and was therefore concidered rightious and had to be rescued.

When looking at what later happened, we see the contours of judgement. Lot got dead drunk and fell asleep, this is his sin, and though a minor one, it lead to much sadness. For his daughters, fearing they wouldn't get children with anyone around, raped their father while he slept and got pregnant giving birth to two ME patriarchs. This was their sins, grave abominations, rape and incest.

Everyone in the bible is discribed with atleast one sin connected to them. Adam sinned. Even Abraham and Moses sinned, David did and so did the others. The Torah and the rest of the Tannakh is a book on the knowledge of both good and evil.



posted on May, 17 2008 @ 06:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by Memysabu
The bible states that anyone commiting a homosexual act should be stoned to death, it clearly condemns it. To the OP, you are in denial.


It only refers to ritual sex between men, drink from the source, not from the sea. Both the Hebrew Torah and the Greek Septuagint discribes ritual sex between men, not homophilia.

And why am I in denial? Firstly I'm not married in the popular sense. In context of the Torah I have only married females in my life, meaning my only sexual experience is with females. I have never "divorced" any of my lovers. Why would I be in denial?



posted on May, 17 2008 @ 06:18 AM
link   
God's greatest gift to man is free will. We are not robots, we can make our own choices... That said, God provided laws that we are to follow. Examples of these laws in action, as well as punishments for disobedience are found throughout the Bible.
The laws are not open for interpretation, they are what they are. In Leviticus, I don't see any ambiguity at all. None. How could the OP, being a reasonably intelligent individual not see that? It's crystal clear!
Same-sex relations are clearly against God's law.

By the way, do you know who else interprets God's law to suit their purposes? Those "fine" folks in Westboro... Still want to be included in that demographic?



posted on May, 17 2008 @ 06:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by Neo Christian Mystic

Originally posted by Memysabu
The bible states that anyone commiting a homosexual act should be stoned to death, it clearly condemns it. To the OP, you are in denial.


It only refers to ritual sex between men, drink from the source, not from the sea. Both the Hebrew Torah and the Greek Septuagint discribes ritual sex between men, not homophilia.

And why am I in denial? Firstly I'm not married in the popular sense. In context of the Torah I have only married females in my life, meaning my only sexual experience is with females. I have never "divorced" any of my lovers. Why would I be in denial?





Leviticus 20:13 clearly states "If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them."



Sounds like youre wrong, I took the original manuscripts apart for four years and translated them myself. You are trying to argue a case based on others lack of knowledge. The bible clearly condemns it and its obvious from what we know of history that they would.

Ignorance in the face of fact is religion, Im guessing two wrongs make a right now?

[edit on 17-5-2008 by Memysabu]



posted on May, 17 2008 @ 06:31 AM
link   
The Torah says that ritual or ceremonial "laying layings of a woman" between two men is a sin. "Laying layings of a woman" refers to Ba'alism and the abomination discribes a ritual or ceremonial sin. To'ebah means "ritually/ceremonial unclean". Somehow all modern translations of the Torah excludes the word ritual/ceremonial from this verse (Le 20:13). This is a conspiracy resulting in hate and violence towards a demographic group of people.

The other place in the Bible sex between two men is talked about, is with Paul who warns the Roman congregation about leaving their husbonds and wives to have sex with people of the same sex, something that was common both in the Greek and Roman society.



posted on May, 17 2008 @ 06:38 AM
link   
John wrote revelation to condemn the Romans, Im pretty sure he did not agree with them.

BTW I dont care if men like other men, I dont believe in god or the bible.
I just feel strongly against hypocrisy. And going to church as a gay makes you a hypocrite.

[edit on 17-5-2008 by Memysabu]



posted on May, 17 2008 @ 06:40 AM
link   
reply to post by pause4thought
 


You know, I saw a bumper sticker once, something like ten years or so ago, and I wanted one real bad, but so far haven't found one. Here's what it said, and I think it's more than apropo for this thread and in reply to that one liner agressive attack you levied at me (unless I misunderstood you) using Jesus's name (man if that's not using his name in vain, I don't know what the hell is!):

"Jesus, Protect Me from Your Followers"



[edit on 17-5-2008 by skyshow]



posted on May, 17 2008 @ 06:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by Memysabu

Originally posted by Neo Christian Mystic
It only refers to ritual sex between men, drink from the source, not from the sea. Both the Hebrew Torah and the Greek Septuagint discribes ritual sex between men, not homophilia.


Leviticus 20:13 clearly states "If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them."

Sounds like youre wrong, I took the original manuscripts apart for four years and translated them myself.


Then come with a literal word for word translation of Leviticus 20:13. I dare you!

What does To'ebah mean? It means abomination, but only in a ritual or a ceremonial context, it doesnot deal with moral acts, like marriage/sex in general.

Therefore you must enter the word ritual or ceremonial to the sentance since English and most European languages lacks a word meaning ceremonial unclean.

The ritual in question is a Ba'al practise where men had sex with men in a religious ritual. This was an abomination to God who prohibits the Israelites to perform such rituals.

"Laying layings of woman" you translate with "as he lieth with a woman", is that adequate?

If you had translated these verses on your own, then howcome you use KJV? It's a poor translation, and it's based on the highly corrupted Latin Vulgate. Certainly not very adequate.



posted on May, 17 2008 @ 07:02 AM
link   
reply to post by skyshow
 



in reply to that one liner agressive attack you levied at me (unless I misunderstood you) using Jesus's name (man if that's not using his name in vain, I don't know what the hell is!)

skyshow - sorry, I think perhaps British & American idiom may differ. I said:


Sir, if you regard Jesus Christ as a nutcase, sign me up.


In other words, put me on your list of nutcases alongside him!


I wish nothing more than to be associated with him, faithful to him, and to spend eternity in his kingdom of forgiven sinners.

(I don't take the name above all names in vain. I used to, but I repented and was forgiven, by God's grace.)



posted on May, 17 2008 @ 07:09 AM
link   
reply to post by Neo Christian Mystic
 


You really sound like a vinyl record that has got stuck. So many posters have shown that your points are invalid, but you go on regardless, repeating the same old "what about this word, what about this word, what..." Talk about not being able to see the wood for the trees!



posted on May, 17 2008 @ 07:17 AM
link   
reply to post by pause4thought
 


I guess I am not following your angle here sir. Why would I put, or when did I say, put jesus on a list of nut cases?



posted on May, 17 2008 @ 07:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by pause4thought
(I don't take the name above all names in vain. I used to, but I repented and was forgiven, by God's grace.)


Not only do you deny your own sin, you even claim God's judgement of the quick and the dead has happened, and not only that, God apparently forgave you?!? You are indeed the nutcase you say you are, but Jesus' mental state we don't know anything about, other than that he would be concidered a schizophreniac based on what the gospel claims he believed , saw said and did. Like many other people claiming "superhuman abilities" like telepathy and being a Messiah or a son of God and basing your life on the Law of OT, Jesus would have a psychiatric diagnosis. That's life, but given the context we have been given, first century Jerusalem, he was a typical Jewish prophet and a Rabbi and not a schizo.



posted on May, 17 2008 @ 07:27 AM
link   
reply to post by Neo Christian Mystic
 


great source this is not

The American Academy of Pediatrics has stated that "sexual orientation probably is not determined by any one factor but by a combination of genetic, hormonal, and environmental influences."[81]

can i point out the word PROBABLY, not really a scientific fact is it?

like saying being gay is probably influenced by the stars.

im stunned how every one relies on wikipedia on a source of authority,

william harvey eat your heart out



[edit on 17/5/2008 by drevill]



new topics

top topics



 
2
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join