What the bible says about gay people.

66 posts / 0 new

Today (5-9-12) you mentioned on your radio show that there is no where in the Bible that talks about homosexuality. What about Leviticus 20:13 or Leviticus 18:22? If that is not talking about being gay, what is it talking about? This is what God told Moses. Are you saying God is wrong?

Leviticus 20:13

King James Version (KJV)

13 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.

Leviticus 18:22

King James Version (KJV)

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

Tenn's picture
Tenn
Joined:
May. 9, 2012 5:39 pm

Comments

Does this bible also include rules on marriage like if a man rapes a woman he can marry her, and if a man kills a man in battle he can take the widow or daughters?

Phaedrus76's picture
Phaedrus76
Joined:
Sep. 14, 2010 7:21 pm

I think Thom said it (gayness) is not mentioned by Jesus or in the New Testament.

Erik300's picture
Erik300
Joined:
Apr. 2, 2010 9:44 am

Is Jesus not God ?

Tenn's picture
Tenn
Joined:
May. 9, 2012 5:39 pm

This is what God told Moses. Are you saying God is wrong?

Tenn's picture
Tenn
Joined:
May. 9, 2012 5:39 pm

OK. What about it? Do you understand what this text means? Does it apply to women? What other moral practices are part of the passage, and what is the context of the theology behind the text?

The "Holiness Code"and other arcane pieces of a developing tradition contain a number of passages that are either peculiar or contrary to the broad and common moral approach that has legitimacy as "biblical authority." These obscure texts do not fit into anything coherent as morality or much of anything else. What matters is that they have no correspondence with anything that would make sense of the stricture today. Like the ban on clothing comprised of more than one kind of cloth, this "prohibition" on male homosexual intercourse has no moral authority today.

There are 'stronger' passages to cite. The easiest to misunderstand as a clear condemnation is the First Chapter of Romans; but the rhetorical sense of the argument in the first two chapters makes it clear that what is cited to condemn homosexuality in 1:27 is itself an example Paul cites to condemn those who judge others. It is they, not those they judge who are guilty in Paul's eyes. It is they who find barriers to the inclusion of others who are the problem. Paul is the apostle to the Gentiles, and this is a typical example of his conflict with the Jewish Christians who wanted circumcision and the rest of Jewish practice.

I should also point you to the classics in biblical authority like the Westminster Confession where a number of things that today's biblical conservatives seem not to know about are stated. For example, did you know that it takes the illumination of the Holy Spirit to make the text you read knowable to you as "the Word of God?" Did you think that just reading it and understanding what the words say was enough? Sorry.

But it doesn't have to be that hard. The basic principle is that the Word of God cannot conflict with the Nature of God. God is the Author of All Truth and the Embodiment of Love and Justice. So, if your reading of a text makes you conclude something contrary to what you know in all honesty and/or what you know to be loving or just in your heart, you need to appreciate that you do not understand that text. It has no authority as he Word of God if it leads you against the Nature of God.

This is Reformation theology, not some modern way to wriggle out of the words on the page right there in the King James Bible. That there are far better renderings of the ancient texts in print does not change the argument above about how we read and misread the texts. It does make the idea that the King James Bible is the real one and the rest are just modern departures from the real thing yield.

But how about the fact that dear King James was a flaming gay! Irony is everywhere.

drc2
Joined:
Apr. 26, 2012 11:15 am

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OFkeKKszXTw

Ever read your Bible? Their ideas are extremely fucked up.

Phaedrus76's picture
Phaedrus76
Joined:
Sep. 14, 2010 7:21 pm

Tenn, the Bible is divided into two large sections. The entire Old Testament, and in particular the passages you list are part of the First Covenant God made with the Isrealites. When Jesus came, the First Covenant was no longer valid.

"Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah: Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day [that] I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt; which my covenant they brake, although I was an husband unto them, saith the LORD: But this [shall be] the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the LORD, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people. And they shall teach no more every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the LORD: for they shall all know me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them, saith the LORD: for I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more."—Jeremiah 31:31–34

For this reason Christ is the mediatorof a new covenant,that those who are calledmay receive the promisedeternal inheritance—now that he has died as a ransom to set them free from the sins committed under the first covenant. Hebrews 9:15

Check this for a fuller theological explanation:

http://godstenlaws.com/law-grace/new-covenant.html

Perhaps what Thom meant to say is that Jesus NEVER mentions homosexuality. By extension, condemnation of homosexuality has NO PLACE in the New Covenant with God. We are saved through faith, not following the Old Covenant which God and Jesus both made clear is no longer valid.

Hope that helps.

That said, the founders of this country specifically created a barrier between church and state, recognizing that many Americans fled Europe precisely because of governmentally sponsored religious persecution. Legislating Christianity, or any relgion for that matter, has no place in this country. Anti-homosexuality laws are strictly based on Judeo-Christian biases and beliefs about the instution of marriage as a RELIGIOUS phenomenon. If these laws had a CIVIC purpose, then you might be able to rationalize them but they don't. You are never going to make a convincing argument that giving one person a right and taking it from another has civic value.

ah2
Joined:
Dec. 13, 2010 9:00 pm

"We are saved through faith"

"For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves"

Tenn's picture
Tenn
Joined:
May. 9, 2012 5:39 pm
Quote Tenn:

This is what God told Moses. Are you saying God is wrong?

Yes, she is wrong. Either that or Moses had such a bad hangover that he misunderstood. I also think that the burning bush was just a metaphor for crabs.

Bush_Wacker's picture
Bush_Wacker
Joined:
Jun. 25, 2011 6:53 am

May 9, 2012North Carolina Weighs Ban on Electricity, SoapAmendment One Supporters Push New Law

NORTH CAROLINA (The Borowitz Report) – Flush with victory from yesterday’s statewide vote, supporters of North Carolina’s Amendment One today moved forward with a bold proposal to ban electricity and soap.

Cal Pinckton, a leading proponent of Amendment One who has helped craft the new law, says the principles behind it are simple: “If the Bible doesn’t mention something, it’s against the law, and the Bible makes no mention of either soap or electricity.”

He adds that North Carolina will “still have plenty of stuff that the Bible does mention, like boils and locusts.”

While some critics of the proposed law said that it could be damaging to North Carolina’s economy since it would drive away fanciers of soap and electricity, Mr. Pinckton sees it differently.

“I think we’ll see a huge boom in tourism,” he says. “North Carolina is on its way to becoming one great big old timey theme park, like Colonial Williamsburg.”

But Mr. Pinckton is careful to emphasize that under the proposed law, there would be certain situations in which the use of electricity would be permitted: “You could still use electricity for things that are explicitly mandated by the Bible, like transvaginal ultrasounds.” Get a free subscription to the Borowitz Report here.

Upcoming Events

May 23, 2012 at 07:00 PM

New York – Free Show!

Join Andy as he performs and talks with humorist and Time magazine columnist Joel Stein. This event is free - no tickets necessary.

Location:
Barnes and Noble, 2289 Broadway NYC 10024

The Borowitz Report: Waste Someone's Time: Forward to a Friend.

Sign up today for your own Borowitz Reports.

Remove me from this list.

douglaslee's picture
douglaslee
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm

Bush_Wacker, was it metaphor or hullucinogenic drugs? Comparing the different religions by geographic areas, the Native Americans had holy images dealing with trees, forests, and more vegetation in general, the big 3 Abrahamic dealt with the images conjured in the desert, more Jim Morrison.

The Romans and Greeks had their images based on bigger celestial things. Nordic countries had theirs, too. Thor got a day of the week named after him.

douglaslee's picture
douglaslee
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm

I don't really think it was a metaphor or drugs. I honestly believe that it's just a story that was morphed over the years. My analytical mind will not allow me to base my entire life on faith. Just my opinion and I hope I don't affend anyone. If I do, it's not intentional.

Bush_Wacker's picture
Bush_Wacker
Joined:
Jun. 25, 2011 6:53 am

What does the Bible say on slavery?

And what was Moses thinking when he wrote down the part about circumcission?

Phaedrus76's picture
Phaedrus76
Joined:
Sep. 14, 2010 7:21 pm
Quote Tenn:

"We are saved through faith"

"For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves"

"What good is it, my brothers, if someone says he has faith but does not have works? Can that faith save him? 15 If a brother or sister is poorly clothed and lacking in daily food, 16 and one of you says to them, “Go in peace, be warmed and filled,” without giving them the things needed for the body, what good is that? 17 So also faith by itself, if it does not have works, is dead." - James 2:14-17

BW: metaphorical crabs? .... too funny! (no offense to me)

AH2: Although much of the old covenant appears to be obliterated by the new covenant, I've always felt that Jesus was more specifically rendering judgement upon the interpretation of God's Law by the elders, scribes and Pharisees and not so much invalidating the old covenant in it's entirety. Condemning the condemners or Covenent 2.0 is more appropriate (IMHO).

Of course, Jesus' deafening silence on homosexuality speaks volumes.

Laborisgood's picture
Laborisgood
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm

"God is love. He who dwells in love dwells in God and God dwells in him. - 1 John 4:16.

"God is love". Deal with it. instead of condemning it.The emotional bonding between gays is no different than the emotional bonding between heterosexuals. That level of emotional bonding often includes sex as an expression of it.

Probably attacking love is the same thing as attacking God.

"Love God.....love thy neighbor as thyself. On this rests the law and the prophets". - Jesus.

Christians often don't seem to get that..They've turned their churches into condemnation centers.

Christianity isn't so much about anothers behavior as it is about one's own..

Retired Monk - "Ideology is a disease"

polycarp2
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm

Labor, I guess we will have to disagree. The quote you provide above your statements, in my opinion, confirms this. The Old Covenant was forumlated as such "Keep my laws (good works) and you shall enter into Heaven. If you break my laws, you burn in hell" That is the gist. The New Covenants was, "Alright you guys suck so bad at keeping the laws (IE: you are inherntly sinful). So, I am going to send my Son to you and have him killed and ressurrected (this is the Grace part that Tenn was pointing out), and if you believe in Me/Him then you will be saved with out good works (IE keeping the laws because I know you can't effing do it anyway)."

"But now apart from the Law the righteousness of God has been manifested, being witnessed by the Law and the Prophets, even the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ ... whom God displayed publicly as a propitiation in His blood through faith. This was to demonstrate His righteousness ... that He might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus." (Romans 3:21-26).

This is also marked out by the NUMEROUS times Jesus starts his lesson with, "You have heard it said _______, but now I tell you ______________." This is Jesus referencing old laws and invalidating them. He does this over and over. Now, Jesus makes clear that this does not obsolve us of living a good life but he does make clear that the Old Laws are being replaced by new ones. Jesus gives New Commandment to us:

“A new command I give you: Love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another. By this everyone will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another.” John 13:34-35.

Typically, the second part of those lesson ("but I tell you ______") is completely about loving one another unconditionally as God loves us.

No one can accuse homosexuals of not loving one another. Bigots, on the other hand...

This is then reasserted in First Corinthians:

"If I speak in the tongues[a] of men or of angels, but do not have love, I am only a resounding gong or a clanging cymbal. 2 If I have the gift of prophecy and can fathom all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have a faith that can move mountains, but do not have love, I am nothing. 3 If I give all I possess to the poor and give over my body to hardship that I may boast,[b] but do not have love, I gain nothing.

blah blah blah....

13 And now these three remain: faith, hope and love. But the greatest of these is love."

The first paragraph could probably have included, "If I only nail people of the opposite sex but have not love, I gain nothing." The point here is that your behavior alone does not provide you with spiritual fullfillment - love does. Faith, Hope, Love - that is the New Covenant. Period.

The primary purpose of the Old Testament, in my opinion, is to do two things: Show humans are inherently sinful and their need for salvation, and outline the prophecy of Jesus to legitimate his claim that he is Christ the One God - the provider of our salvation.

ah2
Joined:
Dec. 13, 2010 9:00 pm

ah2:

I'm not necessarily disagreeing with you, but stating my perspective (that can always be recalibrated upon further review). I love your synopsis: "you guys suck at keeping My Laws so I'm sending in Jesus cause you can't effing do it yourselves".

It's funny that you used my James quote against me when I was using it against Tenn. You see it as a tether to the old covenant while I was trying to use it as an example of Tenn's mis-interpretation of the new covenant. The Bible's funny that way.

James was inclined towards the Jewish Christians as opposed to Paul. Paul's team won that battle in the long run. I've always loved the book of James for it's ability to cut against the grain of Paul. Martin Luther hated the book of James and felt it should never have been granted canonicity. That is because it completely undermines the "Lutheran Trinity" of faith, grace and scripture.

I've always assumed the "works" that James speaks of are primarily the works of loving your neighbor and not the "works" of the old covenant even though dietary laws and circumcision were clearly issues in the early years. Perhaps I am wrong. Maybe I'm just rebelling against the rebel Luther.

Aside from all of that, there appears to be a consensus on homosexuality except for our friend Tenn, whom I'd love to hear more from in light of all that has been said. Tenn, other than a few literal Bible references pertaining to homosexuality, can you cite specific words or actions attributed to Jesus that justifies condemnation and exclusion? If you are an Orthodox Jew, then I cannot argue against your stance on homosexuality, but I would take issue with your stance on salvation by faith and grace and using the New Testament as a reference for your stance.

Laborisgood's picture
Laborisgood
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm

The Divine is too big to put between the pages of a book that was written during the Bronze Age. It is more than can be expressed and limited by words. It is a living thing that inhabits each of our lives and is expressed in our relation with nature and each other. How can It be limited by an old book?

Also, The Divine is not a "short order cook" delivering wishes/prayers instead of food. How insulting to confine The Infinite to finding parking places, helping team win sporting events and siding one culture over the other.

Get outside of yourselves and realize that The Divine is bigger than the Universe and more complex.

All of this judgment is man made not coming from The Divine.

delete jan in iowa
Joined:
Feb. 6, 2011 11:16 am

Racism, in varying forms and to various degrees, has been a plague on humanity for thousands of years. Brothers and sisters of all ethnicities, this should not be. Victims of racism, prejudice, and discrimination need to forgive. Ephesians 4:32 declares, “Be kind and compassionate to one another, forgiving each other, just as in Christ God forgave you.” Racists may not deserve your forgiveness, but we deserved God’s forgiveness far less. Those who practice racism, prejudice, and discrimination need to repent. “Present yourselves to God as being alive from the dead, and your members as instruments of righteousness to God” (Romans 6:13). May Galatians 3:28 be completely realized, “There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.”

Bush_Wacker's picture
Bush_Wacker
Joined:
Jun. 25, 2011 6:53 am

The Bible says a lot about gay activities between men--but virtually nothing about gay activities between women. That has lead some Bible scholars to conclude that the prohibition against gay men's activities is not about the gay act, itself, but more in line with the Bible's instruction to 'go forth and multiply'. Since men are the 'multipliers', the Bible didn't want 'that function' diverted to those things that 'didn't multiply'. Women, on the other hand, could stray from that requirement and still, when the time came, 'receive the multiplication'.

Solomon reportedly had hundreds of concubines--enough for a different contact every night of the year. What do you think those women were supposed to do in the meantime 'waiting for their night'? Solomon didn't want to compete with other men--but, he didn't mind the women comingling a little bit....

Kerry's picture
Kerry
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm

2012... in the US... and people are still taking the Bible seriously and literally...

Have to go... my son just talked back to me and he must be stoned to death...

WinstonSmith's picture
WinstonSmith
Joined:
Mar. 12, 2012 10:46 am
Quote WinstonSmith:

2012... in the US... and people are still taking the Bible seriously and literally...

Have to go... my son just talked back to me and he must be stoned to death...

Well, the thread topic is "what the Bible says about gay people" and not "what do you say about the Bible that has nothing to do with gay people". To each his own.

I hope you don't condemn gay people as you do those who read and use the Bible as a reference. As Jesus said, "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone."

Laborisgood's picture
Laborisgood
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm
Quote Bush_Wacker:
Quote Tenn:

This is what God told Moses. Are you saying God is wrong?

Yes, she is wrong. Either that or Moses had such a bad hangover that he misunderstood. I also think that the burning bush was just a metaphor for crabs.

ROFLMAO

D_NATURED's picture
D_NATURED
Joined:
Oct. 20, 2010 7:47 pm
Quote Laborisgood:
Quote WinstonSmith:

2012... in the US... and people are still taking the Bible seriously and literally...

Have to go... my son just talked back to me and he must be stoned to death...

Well, the thread topic is "what the Bible says about gay people" and not "what do you say about the Bible that has nothing to do with gay people". To each his own.

I hope you don't condemn gay people as you do those who read and use the Bible as a reference. As Jesus said, "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone."

There's a big difference between being born with a certain sexual preference and adopting, whole cloth, the rantings of an ancient, superstitious, death cult.

Before any of us give a shit what the bible says about anything, we should decide whether we love that fucking book or each other more, because you can't do both.

People are always putting down others for being a "cafeteria christian". I think they are wrong to do so. I have waaaaaay more respect for those who read the bible critically, and disregard the misogyny and calls to violence, than I do for the "inerrant word of god" crowd. Those people are robots and don't deserve to possess their neglected sense of right and wrong.

D_NATURED's picture
D_NATURED
Joined:
Oct. 20, 2010 7:47 pm

According to Thomas Jefferson finding the words from Jesus in the bible: " is as easily distinguishable as diamonds in a dunghill". I think Thomas Jefferson is spot on - rather beautifully and succintly - he put together his Jeffersonian Bible. He searched through the bible and clipped out what he believed matched the spirit of Jesus. Here is another Jeffersonian jewel which speaks to his wisdom of the true spirit of the man we call "Jesus" - " There will be found remaining the most sublime and benevolent code of morals which has ever been offered to man".

From wikipedia: In an 1803 letter to Joseph Priestley, Jefferson states that he conceived the idea of writing his view of the "Christian System" in a conversation with Dr. Benjamin Rush during 1798–99. "In extracting the pure principles which he taught, we should have to strip off the artificial vestments in which they have been muffled by priests, who have travestied them into various forms, as instruments of riches and power to themselves. We must dismiss the Platonists and Plotinists, the Stagyrites and Gamalielites, the Eclectics, the Gnostics and Scholastics, their essences and emanations, their logos and demiurges, aeons and daemons, male and female, with a long train of … or, shall I say at once, of nonsense. We must reduce our volume to the simple evangelists, select, even from them, the very words only of Jesus, paring off the amphibologisms into which they have been led, by forgetting often, or not understanding, what had fallen from him, by giving their own misconceptions as his dicta, and expressing unintelligibly for others what they had not understood themselves. There will be found remaining the most sublime and benevolent code of morals which has ever been offered to man. I have performed this operation for my own use, by cutting verse by verse out of the printed book, and arranging the matter which is evidently his, and which is as easily distinguishable as diamonds in a dunghill. The result is an octavo of forty-six pages, of pure and unsophisticated doctrines.[3]"

Jefferson Bible - Wikipedia, the free encyclopediaen.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jefferson_Bible

The Jefferson Bible (The Life and Morals of Jesus of Nazareth) ... I have performed this operation for my own use, by cutting verse by verse out of the printed ... and which is as easily distinguishable as diamonds in a dunghill. ....

media_muse
Joined:
Dec. 10, 2011 2:09 pm
Quote Kerry:

The Bible says a lot about gay activities between men--but virtually nothing about gay activities between women. That has lead some Bible scholars to conclude that the prohibition against gay men's activities is not about the gay act, itself, but more in line with the Bible's instruction to 'go forth and multiply'. Since men are the 'multipliers', the Bible didn't want 'that function' diverted to those things that 'didn't multiply'. Women, on the other hand, could stray from that requirement and still, when the time came, 'receive the multiplication'.

That's because half the time, they recieved that multiplication against their will. Men, as multipliers, is a hilarious notion given the fact that men can attempt to manually multiply all they want but, without a female, it's just another stained sheet.

Solomon reportedly had hundreds of concubines--enough for a different contact every night of the year. What do you think those women were supposed to do in the meantime 'waiting for their night'? Solomon didn't want to compete with other men--but, he didn't mind the women comingling a little bit....

Yes, let's look at ancient woman haters as some sort of symbol of original tolerance. Jesus, I hate what Jesus followers like to say.

Atheists have really been short changed in the "excuse to say stupid shit" department. Count your blessings, christian hoard.

D_NATURED's picture
D_NATURED
Joined:
Oct. 20, 2010 7:47 pm

Would someone here please explain to me WHAT THE F*#K A RELIGIOUS BOOK or JESUS HAS TO DO WITH DECIDING THE LAWS OF THE UNITED STATES?

bamboo's picture
bamboo
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm

They don't, they shouldn't and they never were supposed to, but yet that is the only card the anti-gay crowd has to play. We all lose out when that card gets played.

Laborisgood's picture
Laborisgood
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm

The Bible says as much about gays and lesbians as it does about dinosaurs and neandrathals.

Bush_Wacker's picture
Bush_Wacker
Joined:
Jun. 25, 2011 6:53 am

Genesis 19

Judges 19:14

1 Corinthians 6:9-10

Leviticus 18:22

Leviticus 20:13

Romanns 1:24-28

Deuteronomy 23:17-18

1Kings 14:22,24

1 Kings 15:11-12

1 timothy 1:9-10

Jude 7

There are many more. Couldn't find anything about dinosaurs or Barney.

camaroman's picture
camaroman
Joined:
May. 9, 2012 10:30 am
Quote Laborisgood:

They don't, they shouldn't and they never were supposed to, but yet that is the only card the anti-gay crowd has to play. We all lose out when that card gets played.

I agree, and the worst part of it is, when they do that, they force people like myself with no religious preference to choose sides. I, of course, have to side with the oppressed when, in reality, I don't care what people's religious beliefs are as long as they aren't used as an excuse to put others down.

I know you're a christian, Laborisgood, and a damn fine one at that. It's too bad that the bigotries that are passed off as piety don't get rejected more often by the religious and non-religous alike. We tend, too often, to stay neutral when others speak their religously-motivated hatred because to say anything is "intolerant". Being intolerant of intolerance should be the human default, not something that can be weighed against our faith. What faith is a subset of hate anyway?

D_NATURED's picture
D_NATURED
Joined:
Oct. 20, 2010 7:47 pm

The elephant in the room being that people have used the Bible to justify that which is unjustifiable from the very beginning... don't see such nonsense ceasing anytime soon.

"The entire history of social improvement has been a series of transitions, by which one custom or institution after another, from being a supposed primary necessity of social existence, has passed into the ranks of a universally stigmatized injustice and tyranny." John Stuart Mill

Not so long ago, the genocide of Native Peoples was being justified by using the Bible. The same people did much the same with slavery... the Bible justifies such an institution. Genocide, slavery, segregation, the right of women to vote... at one time ALL were justified by the Bible and or the other two common defenses; contrary to nature, and the ruin to society... together with being condemmned in Scripture and you have the trifecta of bigotry, hate, and intolerance.

Interesting thing about the Bible is that the majority of writers and forgers who wrote it did not believe in what they were writing... especially the Old Testament. The nonsense of Bible inerrency being a relatively new invention... used to control the group du jour of the moment.

Take a kind, decent and compassionate person who... for whatever reason decides to become a Christian (insert religion of choice). They will gravitate towards and embrace the kinder, more nobler verses in the Bible while eschewing the more psychopathic verses. Feeding the hungry, visiting prisoners, helping the poor etc.

Take a sociopath or follower of Ayn Rand (but I repeat myself) who.. for whatever reason decides to become a Christian (insert religion of choice). They will gravitate towards the more psychopathic verses in the Bible while eschewing the kinder, more nobler verses. Justification for slavery, killing of homosexuals etc.

Curious thing is that they would both be right... and wrong....

WinstonSmith's picture
WinstonSmith
Joined:
Mar. 12, 2012 10:46 am
Quote D_NATURED:

That's because half the time, they recieved that multiplication against their will. Men, as multipliers, is a hilarious notion given the fact that men can attempt to manually multiply all they want but, without a female, it's just another stained sheet.

Well, believe it or not, according to my readings of such subjects (and I've read a fair amount), they couldn't do that, either. That's 'spilling seed'--and may represent the 'sin of Onan'. Although, some have claimed that the 'sin of Onan' was coitus interruptus (pulling it out before ejaculation). It doesn't matter--either way, it's 'spilling seed'--and the Bible didn't want those men that were to 'go forth and multiply' to do that....right in line with men's gay activities as the Bible overlooks women's gay activities (no reference to female gay activity at all in the Old Testament where most of the 'thou shalt not's' are--I think Paul briefly mentions it in the New Testament Epistles--but, then, Paul also directed people to abstain completely from sexual activity and to marry only if they couldn't help but 'burn from passion'--and that was probably because the early Christians thought that Jesus would return in their lifetime and they didn't need any more 'going forth and multiplying').

Quote D_NATURED:

Yes, let's look at ancient woman haters as some sort of symbol of original tolerance. Jesus, I hate what Jesus followers like to say.

Are you directing that at me? If so, as usual, you have no fucking idea what you are talking about.

Atheists have really been short changed in the "excuse to say stupid shit" department. Count your blessings, christian hoard.

Read above....and, I don't guess this is the time or place to repeat the point (but I will, anyway) that, unless you are a demented hermit stuck only in your immediate environment, you have some element of faith in the thoughts you have that have no verification in your own immediate reality....but, look who I'm talking to.....

Kerry's picture
Kerry
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm

Well, if nothing else, it seems we scared Tenn off. Shoo, Tenn, Shoo.

ah2
Joined:
Dec. 13, 2010 9:00 pm

The whole point of the topic was that the radio host stated there was nothing in the Bible about it. What he did or did not mean to say doesn't really matter. I was just stating a fact that there is "gayness" mentioned in the Bible. Yes it is old testament. And yes the old testament is still part of the Bible. That was the only point I was making.

Tenn's picture
Tenn
Joined:
May. 9, 2012 5:39 pm
Quote media_muse:

According to Thomas Jefferson finding the words from Jesus in the bible: " is as easily distinguishable as diamonds in a dunghill".

What Jefferson was talking about was distinguishing the words that Jefferson saw embedded in the Bible by the early church claiming to be Jesus' word--as Jefferson did put it, the real words of Jesus from the inserted 'amphibologisms' put in there by the early church--including, as Jefferson believed it to be, all of the 'supernatural elements' of that story. Jefferson, as was with many that were in his era of the Age of Reason, believed that Jesus' words were intended as directives to live in this world--not, 'the next'--and, even described the political tenet that served as the basis for the American experiment in democracy being formulated by the American founders of the time as 'rational Christianity'--inclusive of their concept of 'natural law' that was the basis of the American political society and legal system. Something that I don't think that we appreciate enough, nowadays.

Here's some other statements from Jefferson about Jesus that comes from the Appendix of a book by Stephen Mitchell (who is a religious scholar that was born a Jew and joined a Buddhist monastery--in other words, not a traditional Christian) titled The Gospel According to Jesus--...For Believers and Unbelievers:

You will read the New Testament. It is the history of a personage called Jesus. Keep in your eye the opposite pretensions: 1, of those who say he was begotten by God, born of a virgin, suspended and reversed the laws of nature at will, and ascended bodily into heaven; and 2, of those who say he was a man of illegitimate birth, of a benevolent heart, enthusiastic mind, who set out without pretensions to divinity, ended in believing them, and was punished capitally for sedition, by being gibbeted, according to the Roman law, which punished the first commission of that offense by whipping, and the second by exile, or death in furea.

Do not be frightened from this inquiry by any fear of its consequences. If it ends in a belief that there is no God, you will find incitements to virtue in the comfort and pleasantness you feel in its exercise, and the love of others which it will procure you. If you find reason to believe there is a God, a consciousness that you are acting under his eye, and that he approves you, will be a vast additional incitement; if that there be a future state, the hope of a happy existence in that increases the appetite to deserve it; if that Jesus was also a God, you will be comforted by a belief of his aid and love. In fine, I repeat, you must lay aside all prejudice on both sides, and neither believe nor reject anything, because any other persons, or description of persons, have rejected or believed it. Your own reason is the only oracle given you by heaven, and you are answerable, not for the rightness, but uprightness of the decision. I forgot to observe, when speaking of the New Testament, that you should read all the histories of Christ, as well of those whom a council of ecclesiastics have decided for us, to be Pseudo-evangelists, as those they named Evangelists, because these Pseudo-evangelists pretended to inspiration, as much as the others, and you are to judge of their pretensions by your own reason, and not by the reason of those ecclesiastics.

For such 'reasonable' considerations of the words and writings about Jesus, some more orthodox believers in Jefferson's time accused Jefferson of being 'atheistic'--which then was more a slander than today. Jefferson responded by claiming that those who did not choose to use their own reason were not following the words of Jesus (such as Luke 12:54-59)--and that they were the 'atheistic' ones. Here are two other statements from Jefferson about Jesus from Mitchell's book's Appendix:

Among the sayings and discourses imputed to him by his biographers, I find many passages of fine imagination, correct morality, and of the most lovely benevolence; and others again of so much untruth, charlatanism, and imposture, as to pronounce it impossible that such contradictions should have proceeded from the same being. I separate therefore the gold from the dross; restore to him the former, and leave the latter to the stupidity of some, and roguery of others of his disciples. Of this band of dupes and impostors, Paul was the great coryphaeus and first corrupter of the doctrines of Jesus.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

No one sees with greater pleasure than myself the progress of reason in its advances towards rational Christianity. When we shall have done away with the incomprehensible jargon of the Trinitarian arithmetic, that three are one, and one is three; when we shall have knocked down the artificial scaffolding, reared to mask from view the simple structure of Jesus; when, in short, we shall have unlearned everything which has been taught since his day, and got back to the pure and simple doctrines he inculcated, we shall then be truly and worthily his disciples; and my opinion is that if nothing had ever been added to what flowed purely from his lips, the whole world would at this day have been Christian.

Kerry's picture
Kerry
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm
Quote Tenn:

If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman...

So sodomy with my wife is cool. It's always a good time for learning.

chilidog
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm
Quote douglaslee:

Thor got a day of the week named after him.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wodanaz

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frigg

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T%C3%BDr

chilidog
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm
Quote Tenn:

The whole point of the topic was that the radio host stated there was nothing in the Bible about it. What he did or did not mean to say doesn't really matter. I was just stating a fact that there is "gayness" mentioned in the Bible. Yes it is old testament. And yes the old testament is still part of the Bible. That was the only point I was making.

I did not hear what Thom said or didn't say about gayness in the Bible yesterday, but I have heard him correctly state in the past that Jesus makes no mention of homosexuality. I've also heard him say that the scribes had a transcription error when they incorrectly wrote that God hates fags, when they should have said God hates figs. You know He smote a few fig trees.

Laborisgood's picture
Laborisgood
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm

If we're going to go back to a Biblical definition of marriage, that's fine by me each of my 10 wives.

Lonely Summer's picture
Lonely Summer
Joined:
Nov. 5, 2011 10:07 pm

Tenn, when you cite a number of biblical texts as authority in an argument, you do more than name them. You give them standing. It is not an innocent or neutral point you were making, and you need to own up to that. I am willing to be patient with people who are innocently confused about what has become an inflamed piece of partisan propaganda--but the bottom line is that the biblical textual case against homosexuality as "sin" is weaker than what was brought to bear to keep women subjugated and black people enslaved and secondary.

Knoweldge of the actual texts and their contexts as well as the whole idea of "biblical authority" and how teachings and doctrine can claim its "integrity" undermines many common and simplistic ideas about it works. The Mystery of the Word of God does not just appear from reason and texts, it only emerges into Knowledge as "the Holy Spirit" reveals the harmony of the moral and intellectual and Head and Heart are One. Put simply, the Word of God correctly understood, cannot contradict the Nature of God. If we have to go against everything we know to be true, and if we have to do something against what we know to be loving or just, we had better not claim to be doing it in the name of God. Unless, of course, God really tells us to.

As a dialogue of conscience, I think we can recognize that we have to come to ethical reality with more than legalism or sentiment. Moral and intellectual integrity is about a deep honesty and caring, not a shallow and myopic concern for self. To get the Spirit of the Law from the Letter, one must want more than a map of the fences or what is officially illegal.

There is absolutely no reason the civil life of the US should care what the Bible says about anything. But, because our culture is formed by religion to a large part, there is a larger story in which any and all "departures" from the revealed and ordained order are considered to incite the wrath of God. We do need to deal with the fact that our neighbors and fellow citizens have a lot of religious ideas that are in need of a serious faith and reality check. People who think they are not religionists need to do their own version of the same thing.

BUT, we do have to call bs on homophobia and its "right" to enact unjust and uncouth "laws. As with sexism and racism, we need to unplug the textual 'certainty' to let the superstructure crash of its own weight. All it has to be about is equality. It is those who stigmatize and demonize who raise the issue. Marriage equality asks those who oppose it to come with a reason that has any legitimacy at all, and they cannot. "Gay Marriage" makes you think about sex. Those in favor of marriage might consider the advantage of something that makes marriage sexy. But, the issue needs to be settled on terms neutral to religious opinion. Disagreements about biblical authority belong in churches and not in public policy.

Religious people need to understand that their religious freedom does not include the right not to be offended by the beliefs and practices of their neighbors and fellow citizens. It requires them to have a civil respect for their neighbor's rights and religious freedom, not just their own ideas on right and wrong. The principle extends beyond religion to all our sense of civil equality and inclusion. We do not have a "democratic establishment of religion by majority opinion." We have freedom of religion from any establishment and from any infringement on conscience.

drc2
Joined:
Apr. 26, 2012 11:15 am

IMO, homosexuality being accepted as normal within the human species is a threat to patriarchy—hence, the Old Testament degrading homosexuality and threatening to have homosexual sexual practices punished with death & blood is not exactly a big surprise.

As mentioned in earlier posts, Jesus taught that love is all that matters — anything & everything else is always going to change. Love, not sex, is the foundation of the Universe — love is God. God is love. In the big picture, nothing else matters.

Clearly, God loves homosexuals.

Karolina's picture
Karolina
Joined:
Nov. 3, 2011 6:45 pm

The person who believes the Bible and that homosexuality is wrong, and that all homosexuals are going to hell, is the same as the person who believes the Koran, who believes that if they die "in the service of Allah (suicide bomber) they will go to heaven with a whole lot of virgins longing for sex - are the same.

dhavid
Joined:
Jul. 16, 2010 9:41 am

@dhavid It is entirely possible to believe the Bible and that homosexuality is wrong, and that NOT all homosexuals are going to hell. All sin is anathama to (my) God, my God loves us all but that does not mean that sin will go unpunished.

mjolnir's picture
mjolnir
Joined:
Mar. 3, 2011 11:42 am

Marriage is between one man his 700 wives and 300 concubines.

Phaedrus76's picture
Phaedrus76
Joined:
Sep. 14, 2010 7:21 pm

If you would believe the Bible:

1 Corinthians 6:9-10

New International Version (NIV)

9 Or do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor men who have sex with men[a] 10 nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.

Oh, and your God also created sin, the devil, and all the rest. How is it possible not to be so? Think.

dhavid
Joined:
Jul. 16, 2010 9:41 am
Quote dhavid:

If you would believe the Bible:

1 Corinthians 6:9-10

New International Version (NIV)

9 Or do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor men who have sex with men[a] 10 nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.

Oh, and your God also created sin, the devil, and all the rest. How is it possible not to be so? Think.

I guess that pretty much covers everyone on the planet. I'll see you all in hell!

Bush_Wacker's picture
Bush_Wacker
Joined:
Jun. 25, 2011 6:53 am

The bible is not the authoritative word on god .

Truth god wants nothing !!

namaste

humanitys team's picture
humanitys team
Joined:
Dec. 24, 2010 3:53 am

This may sound pretty simple, but I think that heaven and hell are states of mind, and those not totally focused on love with hope and faith and wisdom, will always have some fear. Doing or believing anything that leaves us or keeps us feeling fearful, insecure or vulnerable, also leaves and keeps us in hell. Even Jesus was tormented in the Garden of Gethsemane. Anything done with love for God, and/or sincere love for another person or other people, puts us in heaven.

So once again, gays are as loved by God as everybody else. God has never done anything to make gays feel afraid, insecure or vulnerable—that's been done by people who feel homosexuals threaten their power for some reason, see them as "the enemy" and consequently HAVE NO LOVE FOR THEM. It's a challenge like all bigotry, and all unbridled aggressions, for human beings to learn to respect, accept, help and love each other.

(BTW, historically it seems that the victims in those kinds of challenges usually start working on their sincere love and search for God, since they are the ones with less power. Psychologically, they are then working on their self-love and their personal power in often the only way available.)

Karolina's picture
Karolina
Joined:
Nov. 3, 2011 6:45 pm

With respect to what dhavid quoted, this is an interesting contrast to that 'damnation' (and it may factor into why Jefferson saw how such incentives 'could not have come out of the same person')--this is Luke 7:31-35 (also, NIV version):

"To what, then, can I compare the people of this generation? What are they like? They are like children sitting in the marketplace and calling out to each other:

"'We played the flute for you,
and you did not dance;
we sang a dirge,
and you did not cry.'

"For John the Baptist came neither eating bread nor drinking wine, and you say, 'He has a demon.' The Son of Man came eating and drinking, and you say, 'Here is a glutton and a drunkard, a friend of tax collectors and 'sinners.' ' But wisdom is proved right by all her children."

'Wisdom is proved right by all her children'--it's one of the only references to the feminine in the divine in the entire canonized Bible--and it does appear to counter the 'thou shalt not's' of the more masculine divinity. In fact, it appears here that Jesus, the 'perfect man as God', appears to have 'sinned' a little--and associated himself with 'sinners'....perhaps at least part of the point is not necessarily to 'shun' the 'sin'--but, in line with acquiring 'wisdom', accept and understand it (and, if a 'sin', even it's own nature as 'sin' requires such a wise understanding as all her children could know...).

And, with my study of early Christian history (along with early American history, one of my favorites), many sects of what became known as Gnostics (not all the Gnostics were the same--except when the orthodoxy described them all as 'heretics') had a more 'feminine identity' to their concept of the divine--and, in their way of seeing 'sin', the ultimate 'sin' was ignorance....

Kerry's picture
Kerry
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm

Currently Chatting

The world we're leaving for today's teens...

Without immediate global action on climate change, today's teenagers will be forced to live with the consequences of our inaction. The World Bank has issued their third report of climate change, and it says that global temperatures could rise by as much as 4 degrees Celsius by the time today's teens hit their 80th birthday.

Powered by Pressflow, an open source content management system