Homosexuality and the Bible

Aug 15, 2011 | Posted by: Selecia Jones- JAX FL | Full story: www.smh.com.au

Given the ongoing debate about same-sex marriage, it is time I looked at the two Testaments to remind myself why belief is so hard for me to embrace.

Comments
11,261 - 11,280 of 24,780 Comments Last updated Tuesday
Robsan5

United States

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#11846
Sep 24, 2012
 

Judged:

3

3

1

dman wrote:
<quoted text> just goes to show weaksand turns into LOOSESAND.....(lol).... typical PABbs..... get tested often F.B..... Lot of iv's for you.... Add some haldol as well..
Weak. Lame. Just. Plain. Really Stupid.

Roberta/Robertita (just for you, OCD/ADHD/SASD boy!)
Doug

Pekin, IL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#11847
Sep 24, 2012
 

Judged:

3

3

2

Robsan5 wrote:
<quoted text>
There's no Doug here, David.
How is a modern dictionary's definition relevant to the discussion of the bible, which was last written about 1700 years ago?
The word "homosexual" didn't show up bibles until the middle of the last century. So what word was used in place of homosexual?
The homosexual 'sex act' is not what makes a homosexual a homosexual. It is the attraction to the same sex. Just like straights are straights because of their attraction to the opposite sex.
David, why do you rebel against the way god created you? Don't you know that god loves you the way he made you? If god wanted you to be a heterosexual, he would have made you that way. But he didn't. Rejoice in the love god bestowed upon you.
Robert
You have no rational basis for calling me 'David,' liar.

You were the one that brought up the false relevance of a modern dictionary to a discussion about an ancient book, liar.

A homosexual is defined and identified by a behavioral CHOICE, liar. I've backed up my view. Yours is delusion, liar.

God made no one a homosexual, liar. I've provided extensive documentation that he in fact commands against all homosexual behavior in the plainest of terms in both the New and Old Testaments. You, OTOH, can not provide any rational basis for your anti-Christian anti-scientific claim that you were made a homosexual. Obviously you are very ashamed of your choices since your condition is your worst insult.

No one made you engage in the unspeakable God-forbidden acts that alone define and identify homosexuality, liar. YOU made the choices!
Robsan5

United States

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#11849
Sep 24, 2012
 

Judged:

3

3

3

Doug wrote:
<quoted text>You have no rational basis for calling me 'David,' liar.
You were the one that brought up the false relevance of a modern dictionary to a discussion about an ancient book, liar.
A homosexual is defined and identified by a behavioral CHOICE, liar. I've backed up my view. Yours is delusion, liar.
God made no one a homosexual, liar. I've provided extensive documentation that he in fact commands against all homosexual behavior in the plainest of terms in both the New and Old Testaments. You, OTOH, can not provide any rational basis for your anti-Christian anti-scientific claim that you were made a homosexual. Obviously you are very ashamed of your choices since your condition is your worst insult.
No one made you engage in the unspeakable God-forbidden acts that alone define and identify homosexuality, liar. YOU made the choices!
There's no Doug here, David.
How is a modern dictionary's definition relevant to the discussion of the bible, which was last written about 1700 years ago?
The word "homosexual" didn't show up in bibles until the middle of the last century. So what word was used in place of homosexual?
The homosexual 'sex act' is not what makes a homosexual a homosexual. It is the attraction to the same sex. Just like straights are straights because of their attraction to the opposite sex.
David, why do you rebel against the way god created you? Don't you know that god loves you the way he made you? If god wanted you to be a heterosexual, he would have made you that way. But he didn't. Rejoice in the love god bestowed upon you.

Robert
Doug

Pekin, IL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#11850
Sep 24, 2012
 

Judged:

3

3

3

Robsan5 wrote:
<quoted text>
There's no Doug here, David.
How is a modern dictionary's definition relevant to the discussion of the bible, which was last written about 1700 years ago?
The word "homosexual" didn't show up in bibles until the middle of the last century. So what word was used in place of homosexual?
The homosexual 'sex act' is not what makes a homosexual a homosexual. It is the attraction to the same sex. Just like straights are straights because of their attraction to the opposite sex.
David, why do you rebel against the way god created you? Don't you know that god loves you the way he made you? If god wanted you to be a heterosexual, he would have made you that way. But he didn't. Rejoice in the love god bestowed upon you.
Robert
It's no good.

You can't project your homosexuality onto someone else. You have to repent of it yourself.
Robsan5

United States

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#11851
Sep 24, 2012
 

Judged:

2

2

2

Doug wrote:
<quoted text>It's no good.
You can't project your homosexuality onto someone else. You have to repent of it yourself.
There's no Doug here, David.
How is a modern dictionary's definition relevant to the discussion of the bible, which was last written about 1700 years ago?
The word "homosexual" didn't show up in bibles until the middle of the last century. So what word was used in place of homosexual?
The homosexual 'sex act' is not what makes a homosexual a homosexual. It is the attraction to the same sex. Just like straights are straights because of their attraction to the opposite sex.
David, why do you rebel against the way god created you? Don't you know that god loves you the way he made you? If god wanted you to be a heterosexual, he would have made you that way. But he didn't. Rejoice in the love god bestowed upon you.

Robert

Since: Apr 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#11852
Sep 24, 2012
 

Judged:

2

2

2

Robsan5 wrote:
<quoted text>
There's no Doug here, David.
How is a modern dictionary's definition relevant to the discussion of the bible, which was last written about 1700 years ago?
The word "homosexual" didn't show up in bibles until the middle of the last century. So what word was used in place of homosexual?
The homosexual 'sex act' is not what makes a homosexual a homosexual. It is the attraction to the same sex. Just like straights are straights because of their attraction to the opposite sex.
David, why do you rebel against the way god created you? Don't you know that god loves you the way he made you? If god wanted you to be a heterosexual, he would have made you that way. But he didn't. Rejoice in the love god bestowed upon you.
Robert
Seems to be a quite locked discussion? Just saying the same things againg and again?

Since: Apr 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#11853
Sep 24, 2012
 

Judged:

1

Another thing; What happened to RevKen and El Segundo?

They both had problems with being respectful?
Denny

UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#11854
Sep 24, 2012
 
Robsan5 wrote:
<quoted text>

And it's very Christian of you to visit the sins of the fathers onto their children.
Robert
Natinal pride is passed down through the generations. Why should it not be the same for national shame?

It is down to the younger generations to earn the respect and trust that they desire.
Join Free
Denny

UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#11855
Sep 24, 2012
 
Ivorydick wrote:
<quoted text>
Hiroshima & Nagasaki are their excuse for surrendering although the military (with 2 million fresh troops in Japan) was still desperate for national suicide in resisting an invasion.
There would never have been an invasion because, in the six weeks since mid June 1945 when Truman authorised the invasion, American intelligence showed that defences on the proposed Kyushu invasion beaches had been hugely improved and troop numbers tripled.
The Yasukuni shrine now honours the names of the executed war criminals.
The blockade would have been intensified along with the destruction of the almost ready for harvest rice crop and the resulting famine would have killed millions of Japanese people.
Thank you for that. Any additional information, or expansion of it, is always welcome.
Robsan5

Concord, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#11856
Sep 24, 2012
 

Judged:

2

2

2

Denny wrote:
<quoted text>
Natinal pride is passed down through the generations. Why should it not be the same for national shame?
It is down to the younger generations to earn the respect and trust that they desire.
Like I said, it's very Christian of you to visit the sins of the fathers upon the children.

Robert

Since: May 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#11857
Sep 24, 2012
 
Denny wrote:
<quoted text>
Thank you for that. Any additional information, or expansion of it, is always welcome.
The decision to use the atomic bomb was made by President Truman after considering the advice of a small group of advisors and its use brought an immediate end to the war that was otherwise expected to drag on for another 1218 months.

In the years that followed its use, a rising tide of criticism was orchestrated around the world by the Japanese Government who complained, despite their own appalling record prior to and during WW2, that the destruction of Hiroshima and Nagasaki constituted war crimes.

Supporters of the Japanese view have always chosen to ignore the fact that Truman made his decision based on intelligence and information that remained secret until the late 1990s but provided irrefutable evidence that the Japanese Government, dominated by General Anami, was desperate for an American invasion and determined on national suicide in resisting it.

In the years after the war, many of the participants in the decision Truman, Stimson, Groves, Marshall, Leahy etc published their accounts of the war but, despite the savage criticism around the world none of them uttered a word in defence of their decision because of secrecy constraints.

That secret was so important that Tom Dewey, FDR's opponent in the 1944 Presidential election, probably lost the election because, in the interests of the US war effort, he chose, against the advice of his election circle, to remain quiet about the one thing that would have brought FDR down.

There are other factors when considering alternatives to Hiroshima and Nagasaki but, after nearly three quarters of a century, there can be no doubt that Truman made the correct decision.

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#11858
Sep 24, 2012
 

Judged:

2

2

2

David exists. Doug is a figment of David's imagination. Doug does not exist.
Denny

UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#11859
Sep 25, 2012
 
Ivorydick wrote:
<quoted text>
The decision to use the atomic bomb was made by President Truman after considering the advice of a small group of advisors and its use brought an immediate end to the war that was otherwise expected to drag on for another 1218 months.
In the years that followed its use, a rising tide of criticism was orchestrated around the world by the Japanese Government who complained, despite their own appalling record prior to and during WW2, that the destruction of Hiroshima and Nagasaki constituted war crimes.
Supporters of the Japanese view have always chosen to ignore the fact that Truman made his decision based on intelligence and information that remained secret until the late 1990s but provided irrefutable evidence that the Japanese Government, dominated by General Anami, was desperate for an American invasion and determined on national suicide in resisting it.
In the years after the war, many of the participants in the decision Truman, Stimson, Groves, Marshall, Leahy etc published their accounts of the war but, despite the savage criticism around the world none of them uttered a word in defence of their decision because of secrecy constraints.
That secret was so important that Tom Dewey, FDR's opponent in the 1944 Presidential election, probably lost the election because, in the interests of the US war effort, he chose, against the advice of his election circle, to remain quiet about the one thing that would have brought FDR down.
There are other factors when considering alternatives to Hiroshima and Nagasaki but, after nearly three quarters of a century, there can be no doubt that Truman made the correct decision.
Doubtless the debate will continue for some time yet, without reaching any satifactory conclusion.

Certainly, the a-bombing of those cities was horrible for the inhabitants and even for some of their descendants. However, it would appear the without it a large majority of the inhabitantss of Japan would have faced extermintion, either at the hands of invadng forces or perhaps by their own hands. The cost in American lives would have been very high, too. It must be borne in mind that this was not America's war. America did not want war - it was the Japanese who started it.

As someone once said, it is better that the few be sacrificed to avoid the sacrifice of the many. Or words to that effect.

But its an ill wind that blows no good. That bombing blew the Japanese into the 20th century. From the ashes of Japan arose a powerful trading nation - excelling in electonics and achieving in peace that which they had failed to achieve in war. Not a single Japanese soldier set foot on mainland America, but within a few months of peace America was invaded by scores of Japanese business men. The new generations strived to live down the shame and build something of which they could be, and are, justly proud. And that pride of achievemt can be passed down to their descendants just as shame was passed down to them.

Forgiveness will also come from youger generations to whom the war is history. Grudges still rankle in the breasts of those of us who are old enough to have experienced some of war's horrors. But we are old, and soon those grudges will be carried to the grave with us.
Denny

UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#11860
Sep 25, 2012
 

Judged:

2

2

1

Robsan5 wrote:
<quoted text>
Like I said, it's very Christian of you to visit the sins of the fathers upon the children.
Robert
I don't claim to be a particularly good Christian.

I take it that you you have no pride in your country's heritage, if none of the father's achievements, good or bad, can be passed on to the children.

I'm aware that pride is considered a sin by some. A forgivable sin, in my opinion. Indeed, I consider a man without pride to be a lesser man than he could be.

Since: May 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#11861
Sep 25, 2012
 

Judged:

2

2

2

Denny wrote:
<quoted text> ... pride in your country's heritage,.
My parents each lost a brother in the service of Britain during WW2 - one commanding a Royal Navy warship and the other piloting a Royal Air Force bomber and there was a lot for people to be proud of at that time.

I now feel that there is very little for people with British heritage to feel proud of because Britain has very little of its former glory and is overrun by immigrants who are hell-bent on destroying all British tradition and this plague has resulted in the loss of all the freedoms for which so many many men and women died during those six years.

If I were to leave Africa and live in Britain, as I often consider doing, I would offer my services to the BNP who seem offer the only hope of worthwhile change.

“The Kingdom of God Begins NOW!”

Since: May 07

The Mountain Empire

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#11862
Sep 25, 2012
 

Judged:

2

2

2

dman wrote:
<quoted text> just goes to show weaksand turns into LOOSESAND.....(lol).... typical PABbs..... get tested often F.B..... Lot of iv's for you.... Add some haldol as well..
Sounds like........(lol)....you are...speaking from...experience.

LMAO!

“The Kingdom of God Begins NOW!”

Since: May 07

The Mountain Empire

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#11863
Sep 25, 2012
 

Judged:

2

2

2

Manmanman wrote:
Another thing; What happened to RevKen and El Segundo?
They both had problems with being respectful?
You have problems being on topic?
Doug

Pekin, IL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#11864
Sep 25, 2012
 

Judged:

2

2

2

Robsan5 wrote:
<quoted text>
There's no Doug here, David.
How is a modern dictionary's definition relevant to the discussion of the bible, which was last written about 1700 years ago?
The word "homosexual" didn't show up in bibles until the middle of the last century. So what word was used in place of homosexual?
The homosexual 'sex act' is not what makes a homosexual a homosexual. It is the attraction to the same sex. Just like straights are straights because of their attraction to the opposite sex.
David, why do you rebel against the way god created you? Don't you know that god loves you the way he made you? If god wanted you to be a heterosexual, he would have made you that way. But he didn't. Rejoice in the love god bestowed upon you.
Robert
Your repetitive comments have been proven to be ridiculous a number of times now.

Your compulsion to hurl your hated perversion as an insult truly makes YOU look pathetic.

Your claim that God made anyone a homosexual is anti-Christian and also runs contrary to science. Human sexuality is developmental in nature. One choice leads to another. One experience leads to another. No one forced you to engage in the unspeakable God-forbidden acts that alone define and identify homosexuals. It was you choice.

Since: Apr 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#11866
Sep 25, 2012
 
MiddleWay wrote:
<quoted text>
You have problems being on topic?
First respect, then topic eventually. What about you and topic?
Robsan5

United States

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#11868
Sep 25, 2012
 

Judged:

2

2

2

Denny wrote:
<quoted text>
I don't claim to be a particularly good Christian.
I take it that you you have no pride in your country's heritage, if none of the father's achievements, good or bad, can be passed on to the children.
I'm aware that pride is considered a sin by some. A forgivable sin, in my opinion. Indeed, I consider a man without pride to be a lesser man than he could be.
You're saying I should have "Pride in bad achievements"?!? No way. But I do have forgiveness. And understanding that the sins of one generation don't belong to a following generation.
Robert

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

•••