Skip to comments.
What does the Bible actually say about being gay?
BBC ^
| October 23, 2003
| BBC
Posted on 10/23/2003 3:53:51 AM PDT by ejdrapes
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80 ... 141-156 next last
1
posted on
10/23/2003 3:53:51 AM PDT
by
ejdrapes
To: ejdrapes
Intercourse can also mean to "join in conversation".
2
posted on
10/23/2003 3:56:29 AM PDT
by
Jumper
To: ejdrapes
David wasn't a homo and morals are not bound to time. God stated that homosexuality is an abominiation - literally that it makes him want to puke. It is a sin so sick it warranted death under the law. Jesus' fulfillment of the law may mean that God rightly owns judgement of that sin; but, it makes it no less a sin.
3
posted on
10/23/2003 4:05:55 AM PDT
by
Havoc
(If you can't be frank all the time are you lying the rest of the time?)
To: ejdrapes
What the Bible says is that man is a created being, and that, in the realm of sex, that said being has two natures, male and female, which together are in the image of God.
It also says that the relationship between male humans and female humans proceeds according to a design, or plan.
It also says, by the way, that deviating from the plan is abominable-but in this context, it's not the characterization of the deviation that is important, but the fact that is not part of the Creator's design.
4
posted on
10/23/2003 4:07:21 AM PDT
by
Jim Noble
To: Havoc
God stated that homosexuality is an abominiation - literally that it makes him want to puke. He said the same about eating shrimp.
To: ejdrapes
Others see it rather as a book which is a witness to God's message, but one which was written by humans and thus has flaws. And how do we know that the portions of the Bible which discuss homesexuality are NOT flawed? Maybe the PC view is thawed...maybe? It is.
God said to be "fruitful and multiply" How do two men do that?
God said "a man will leave his mother and father" to be with his wife...not his gay partner.
This article is nuts. There is not two views. There is a correct view and a wrong view. The "gay" view is wrong. No grey area. Gays can justify their conduct as much as they want, and I hope it makes them feel good. They are wrong.
6
posted on
10/23/2003 4:10:33 AM PDT
by
milan
To: Non-Sequitur
He said the same about eating shrimp. Oh, brother!
7
posted on
10/23/2003 4:12:47 AM PDT
by
milan
To: ejdrapes
This author is not up to speed. David's love for Jonathan was the love between two soldiers who had fought many battles together. Stu Webber has addressed this verse in his books. For those of you not familiar with Stu Webber, he was a special ops guy in Vietnam. He talks about the bond that grows between men in combat. I am sure there are many on this forum who have seen combat who can attest to the that. The quoted verse, however, is often cited by those with the homosexual agenda in an effort to paint David as a homosexual. Such a characterization is completely out of context and incorrect.
8
posted on
10/23/2003 4:13:07 AM PDT
by
Pete
To: ejdrapes
I only had to quickly scan the article and even in that brief read I can see the author is hashing up old interpretations of scripture that have long ago been refuted as out of context or simply incorrect. If I have time, I will provide more information. (I am sure there are many others on FR who can do the same and will probably get to it before I get back.)
9
posted on
10/23/2003 4:16:51 AM PDT
by
Pete
To: Jumper
Intercourse can also mean to "join in conversation". But would make no sense in the context.
To: Non-Sequitur
Are you equating eating shrimp with being a homosexual? I know when I eat shrimp and drink beer I do some strange things.
11
posted on
10/23/2003 4:19:40 AM PDT
by
FLAUSA
To: FLAUSA
Are you equating eating shrimp with being a homosexual? I know when I eat shrimp and drink beer I do some strange things. You're half safe. So far as I know Leviticus had nothing to say about beer.
To: Non-Sequitur
He said the same about eating shrimp.
And the penalty, in the Bible, for eating shrimp is??
13
posted on
10/23/2003 4:23:13 AM PDT
by
invoman
To: ejdrapes
This if ignoring that homosexuality and pedophilia were common in pagan societies, as were male and female prostitutes...and the ancient Hebrews were famous for their refusal of such activity..
Catholics would also point out that we rely on traditional interpretations, and that to the earliest times homosexual impurities and going to prostitutes and adultery and premarital sex was considered wrong...even in days before the rabbis and priests decided what should be in the bible...(which is why the Catholic bible has accepted books that the rabbis rejected, since the had been used im the early church).
As for homosexuality, the upright Romans frowned on it, and conisdered it wrong. And most non Christian societies also frown on it...homosexuals are not killed, but ridiculed and looked down upon in traditional Chinese, Hindu and African societies...and for all the rewriting of history about homosexual love in ancient Greece, the Greeks considered it different than marriage, and except for the elite, frowned on it...Aristophanes ridicules a crossdressing guy in one of his plays, for example, and in Lysistrada has women stop a war by refusing sex with men-- the humor behind the play would not be funny if all the guys were humping each other...
14
posted on
10/23/2003 4:25:17 AM PDT
by
LadyDoc
(liberals only love politcially correct poor people.)
To: ejdrapes
Well, as we have heard.
God created Adam and Eve.
Not Adam and Steve.
15
posted on
10/23/2003 4:28:37 AM PDT
by
djf
To: milan; ejdrapes
"This article is nuts."
I thought the article was pretty good, actually. It lays out the two sides of the argument and doesn't champion either. I am not familiar with the Bible "chapter & verse" and have oftened wondered where the homsexual activists found support.
Now I can clearly see from the quotations here that their platform rests on some pretty flimsy boards.
I also see I better stop drinking, if you know what I mean. So I will say, good post!
16
posted on
10/23/2003 4:30:26 AM PDT
by
jocon307
(New tagline coming soon......)
To: milan
Why don't we discuss fornicators,slanderers,thieves,adulterers,like we do homosexuals?
17
posted on
10/23/2003 4:31:55 AM PDT
by
MEG33
To: Havoc
This article doesn not mention what Paul had to say about it. Of course, Paul was handpicked by Christ himself to bring the Gospel to the gentiles....Paul said that we should not be decieved; that no murderer, no liar, no homesexual would enter the Kingdom of Heaven.
He also said that "men gave up the natural affection for women, and burned within themselves for each other, and recieved within them the just recompence of their actions."
To: MEG33
Why don't we discuss fornicators,slanderers,thieves,adulterers,like we do homosexuals? We talk about Congress all the time!
19
posted on
10/23/2003 4:34:48 AM PDT
by
Jonah Hex
(The Truth Shall Make You Free-p)
To: ejdrapes
Anyonw who's been born again knows very well what He 'means' when they read the Bible. Our slimy attempts at justifying sin of any kind is common to us all, but it still doesn't change what He says.
Anyway, sex of any kind outside of marriage is prohibited. Doesn't matter if it's male/female or not. And you can only be married to someone of the opposite sex.
20
posted on
10/23/2003 4:36:35 AM PDT
by
ovrtaxt
( http://www.fairtax.org **** Forget ANWR. Drill Israel !)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80 ... 141-156 next last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson