The bible and gays

[sojourner]

Whatever, it`s surely still a choice they make to be sexually active and even promiscuous, therein lies the problem, choices , which God allows in your free will . That free will is your right but God hopes you will freely choose His ways, that`s why you were created, to choose to follow Him through Christ.

Therefore, based on your criteria, you, too (and everyone, in fact) should refrain from sexual acts unless they're married. Now, homosexuals can be married, so I don't see what the beef is here.

 

[JoStories]

Cool, thanks guys

I'm trying to find out if the Abrahamic religions are homophobic. According to that definition, I don't see they are. It was a passing question I thought I'd ask here is all.

Cheers, ladies

IMO, based solely on the actions of the few, I would say yes to that they are homophobic. This is not to say all peoples of those faiths are but overall, they do condemn gays and homosexual behavior. And btw,.,,sorry for the typo Smart GUY~!!

 

[JoStories]

That's not what I said, though. "Reconciling humanity" isn't at all the same thing as "achieving communion." Nor do other religions' gods become Incarnate for that express purpose.

ah... mea culpa on that one. I wondered if I was mistaken as I was heading in to my MD to have Reiki, a massage, and spinal manipulation. Damn..I feel pretty darn good right now. Kiss kiss darling.

 

[JoStories]

We have to remember (in all seriousness) that these sorts of acts, the position of women/daughters, and the primacy of men were all viewed much, much differently that time and place. We have to be very careful about assigning modern meaning and inferences to ancient texts like this. Plus, we have to consider that the story is highly metaphorical -- it's not a news story of a historical event. We have to look deeper for what the circumstance alludes to.

While I absolutely agree with you, which I know you would know, I would also add that for most folks they view faith through that modern lens. Those who are more learned and able to discern history from now, as well as cultural imports and mores, and so on, can see what you state here. Most don't however, or a goodly number and I mean no offense by that to anyone.

 

[JoStories]

At the time the canon was set, there was no "RCC." There was only "the Church." There was a bishop of Rome, but he was not seen to be the undisputed leader of the whole church -- only the bishop of Rome. No, Thomas was unknown until its discovery in the last century. The other extant gospels were left out more for either authentication problems, or for theological reasons.

Can we really know that Thomas was truly unknown? It may have been known by Essenes or Gnostics. And I was thinking more of the councils of Nicea and Trent than right when things happened. I should have been more clear. What can I say? My new kitten got me up at 2 am and its already been a long day...and I still have yard work to do!!

 

[JoStories]

How on earth do you not see the following as "judging homosexuals", because I sure do. Don't really see a way around it. You are just basing your "judgment" on your religious BELIEFS.

Have I told you today how much you are appreciated? Kiss kiss darling.

 

[sojourner]

ah... mea culpa on that one. I wondered if I was mistaken as I was heading in to my MD to have Reiki, a massage, and spinal manipulation. Damn..I feel pretty darn good right now. Kiss kiss darling.

I'm jealous! Dang! I need Reiki, a massage and a spinal adjustment! No worries. I just wanted to make sure you were reading correctly (knowing about your limit vision).

 

[sojourner]

While I absolutely agree with you, which I know you would know, I would also add that for most folks they view faith through that modern lens. Those who are more learned and able to discern history from now, as well as cultural imports and mores, and so on, can see what you state here. Most don't however, or a goodly number and I mean no offense by that to anyone.

It's not an offensive thing to say that bible scholarship is very, very difficult, for the greatest of scholars, and in the best of circumstances. It's not an exact science. It's more like treading a thin line between a few known facts and a lot of supposition extrapolated from those few known facts.

 

[sojourner]

Can we really know that Thomas was truly unknown?

Can we really know anything about any of the biblical texts? We say it was unknown, because not one other text references Thomas. At least some of them would reference it, if it were known.

And I was thinking more of the councils of Nicea and Trent than right when things happened.

One of the mistakes lots of people make is in thinking that Nicea had anything to do with the canon. It didn't. Even if it had, there still was no "RCC" at that time. In fact, there wasn't an "RCC" until the Great Schism of 1054. The power was always split between the Bishop of Rome and the Patriarch of Constantinople.

My new kitten got me up at 2 am and its already been a long day

He's doing his job well, I see...

 

[JoStories]

It's not an offensive thing to say that bible scholarship is very, very difficult, for the greatest of scholars, and in the best of circumstances. It's not an exact science. It's more like treading a thin line between a few known facts and a lot of supposition extrapolated from those few known facts.

Absolutely. I think that is true of any faith or sacred text. One can read the Vedas or The Teachings of the Buddha and get something new from it each and every time. The same is true of the Bible and perhaps even more so because of the controversial nature of the Bible. And then you have those who are creationists who deny overt scientific fact to hang on the stories like Adam and that the world is 6 thousand years old. I don't necessarily think Bible scholarship is all that difficult as much as its simply so controversial. Apologists V those who are simply theologians, like me.

 

[JoStories]

Can we really know anything about any of the biblical texts? We say it was unknown, because not one other text references Thomas. At least some of them would reference it, if it were known.

Isn't it possible that the omission of any remarks on Thomas could have been intentional? Who knows really. And yes, we don't really know who wrote any of them. We can speculate and do have some data but clearly not enough.

One of the mistakes lots of people make is in thinking that Nicea had anything to do with the canon. It didn't. Even if it had, there still was no "RCC" at that time. In fact, there wasn't an "RCC" until the Great Schism of 1054. The power was always split between the Bishop of Rome and the Patriarch of Constantinople.

We're going to have to disagree on this and I will get back to this but at the moment, I am whipped and still need to go make lemon bars, red velvet cream cheese cupcakes and chocolate frosted peanut butter brownies for a family reunion.

He's doing his job well, I see...

LOL...indeed she is. She had an accident 3 weeks ago and her hip was fractured and now she has a scratch on her eye. She has endured major surgery and is only 12 weeks old. But she is a sweet heart.

 

[Norman]

Doesn't the story claim that Lot was made drunk by his daughters and they raped HIM while he was sleeping/drunk in order to carry on their name? They were under the false impression that Lot was the last man alive on earth, if I understand correctly. Thus, I fail to see how Lot could be considered a pedophile. In actuality, it seems that his daughters were pretty messed up in the head and Lot was merely a rape victim.

Norman: I agree with you leibowde84, in my opinion the whole story is odd.

 

[Norman]

Sorry I hadn`t worked out the system but yes , is that better ?

Norman: I am still working on the quote feature myself, can one give me a few pointers

 

[sojourner]

Isn't it possible that the omission of any remarks on Thomas could have been intentional?

I don't know why they would have been. There is material that's shared between Thomas, Matthew and Luke. If they had known about Thomas, they wouldn't dismiss something that shared information with the other gospels.

e can speculate and do have some data but clearly not enough.

It's the complete lack of knowledge of and mention of Thomas before the last century that's compelling in this case.

 

[chessplayer]

I am whipped and still need to go make lemon bars, red velvet cream cheese cupcakes and chocolate frosted peanut butter brownies for a family reunion.

Sounds very nice , not so sure they are terribly good for you though !

 

[chessplayer]

Where does any of the above stats prove that those diseases don't affect heterosexuals? In a word, it doesn't.

They affect all promiscuous people , but the figures are disproportionally higher in the MSM group

Further info from the Centre for Disease Control ( USA )

In the US 63 % of cases of primary and secondary syphilis are among MSM homosexuals.

This is in a percentage population wise of less than 1%


They are often diagnosed with other STDs including Chlamydia and gonorrhoea.The antibiotics for which are quickly becoming more ineffective, as time goes on.


This same group ( MSM ) are often infected with HPV ( human Papillomavirus ) the most common STD in the US. Some types of HPV cause genital and anal warts, and some can lead to the development of anal and oral cancer.


Men who have sex with men are 17 times more likely develop anal cancer than heterosexual men.

The USA goverment publishes this info to educate people on the dangers of their sexual activities. If they had believed the Bible all these wouldn`t have happened, that`s all I`m saying , and I know it`s not PC, but hey !

 

[psychoslice]

Homosexuals keep this world in harmony, if we were all so called strait the world would be controlled by aggressive beings, I cannot imagine a world war started by gays ?.

 

[chessplayer]

Homosexuals keep this world in harmony, if we were all so called strait the world would be controlled by aggressive beings, I cannot imagine a world war started by gays ?.

Are you saying their lifestyle choices makes them wimpish ? Anyway in such a warfare situation as you suggest , they would quickly eliminated by the majority who are not homosexual. Or else they would soon die out as they are not reproducing themselves except by seduction or abuse. The exceptions being the ones who feel they are born that way.

 

[chessplayer]

Therefore, based on your criteria, you, too (and everyone, in fact) should refrain from sexual acts unless they're married. Now, homosexuals can be married, so I don't see what the beef is here.

The vast majority have not gone through any ceremony. Homosexual marriage is not a Biblical concept , the government has decided to be as accommodating and inclusive as possible , but it doesn`t make it Biblically admissible.

 

[chessplayer]

Feelings that we all have are not to be trusted in all cases , all our thoughts need to be treated and assessed according to basic laws of the land or should you choose it , the laws of the Bible.
There are no laws allowing pedophilia or bestiality yet in the UK. However we are " grooming " children in primary school about all, including LGBT, forms of sexual activity .

A recent article on the Mailonline regarding bestiality , quote.

Bestiality brothels are spreading through Germany faster than ever thanks to a law that makes animal porn illegal but sex with animals legal, a livestock protection officer has warned.

Madeleine Martin told the Frankfurter Rundschau that current laws were not protecting animals from predatory zoophiles who are increasingly able to turn to bestiality as a 'lifestyle choice'.


Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...x-animals-lifestyle-choice.html#ixzz3k6Zkx2dw
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook


Just as a football match needs rules , perimeters and guidelines , so also do we. All the feelings we have are not reliable, because of our fallen human nature. Ask the relatives of the holocaust victims .