Industrial-Sized Deals TextBTS15 Shop Women's Handbags Learn more nav_sap_plcc_6M_fly_beacon Beach House Fire TV Stick Grocery Shop Popular Services tmnt tmnt tmnt  Amazon Echo Starting at $99 Kindle Voyage Disney Infinity 3.0 Shop Back to School with Amazon Back to School with Amazon Outdoor Recreation Deal of the Day
Customer Discussions > Religion forum

Can someone beleive in the Bible and agree with homosexuality?


Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 1-25 of 200 posts in this discussion
Initial post: May 18, 2012 10:29:02 AM PDT
[Deleted by the author on Jun 5, 2012 1:04:00 PM PDT]

Posted on May 18, 2012 10:49:46 AM PDT
There are many Christian sects & churches which base their views on the content of the Christian Bible, and who accept gay and lesbian members into their congregations and sanctify their unions, so yes, someone can "believe in the bible" and also accept homosexuality as a normal, natural variation in human sexual orientation, a variation which is not inherently negative.

In reply to an earlier post on May 18, 2012 11:04:26 AM PDT
[Deleted by the author on Jun 5, 2012 1:04:06 PM PDT]

Posted on May 18, 2012 11:26:11 AM PDT
A. Caplan says:
Religiously, I 'believe' in the bible, though not as a history book. However, my religious beliefs are personal and not of anybody's business, especially the governments. I do not have any right to force my beliefs on others.

As an American, I believe that my religious beliefs are not, nor should they be, part of our governing doctrine. That is the purpose of the Constitution of the United States and the Bill of Rights.

I believe that homosexuality is a sin. However, that is between me and G-d and I will not commit that sin. As for everybody else, I don't care what they do, except as it effects me and other Americans, ethically.

I have had coworkers who are gay and I presently have gay friends. However, I do not define them only by their sexual preference, but as an entire package. It they sin against G-d, that is between them and Him and none of my business.

And yes, as an American, I support the right of same sex marriage.

Posted on May 18, 2012 11:27:01 AM PDT
Brian Curtis says:
One answer has been to acknowledge that Jesus--the "owner" of Christianity--never said one word against homosexuality, and that the laws and rules about it in the Old Testament are simply irrelevant to Christians. Thus, condemning homosexuality is no more an obligation of Christians than shunning shellfish would be.

Posted on May 18, 2012 11:36:35 AM PDT
Jane Harper says:
One doesn't "agree with" homosexuality any more than one "agrees with" blue eyes or short stature, or dark skin for that matter. There are any number of scholarly books that have been written about the 7 instances in the Bible that MAY refer to same-sex activity. NOPLACE does the Bible talk about same-gender emotional relationships, just about genital activity, and the references are far from specific. The Hebrew word used in Leviticus, to'ebah, that is so often translated "abomination," is used particularly in ancient writings to identify activities that were used in the cult of Canaanite gods and goddesses, so the entire Holiness Code in Leviticus is about identifying the Israelite religion as not-Canaanite. The scholarship is out there, people. Read it.

In reply to an earlier post on May 18, 2012 11:45:41 AM PDT
[Deleted by the author on Jun 5, 2012 1:04:14 PM PDT]

In reply to an earlier post on May 18, 2012 12:03:46 PM PDT
[Deleted by the author on Jun 5, 2012 1:04:19 PM PDT]

In reply to an earlier post on May 18, 2012 12:17:51 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on May 18, 2012 12:18:16 PM PDT
Bubba says:
The MCC is a gay Christian denomination, one web page that explains their position re., the Bible and homosexuality is at:

http://ninure.com/bible.html

Following are excerpts from that site:

Deuteronomy 23:17-18
These verses have been applied to homosexual behaviour because of a mistranslation of the Hebrew. The King James Version reads "whore" and "sodomite". The Hebrew actually uses the same noun in its masculine and feminine forms, the words are best translated "temple (or cult) prostitute". These verses have nothing directly to do with homosexual behaviour.

Genesis 19:4-11
The sin of Sodom is clearly explained in Ezekiel 16:49-50. It was not homosexual behaviour, but for its deep and general sinfulness, the men in the story may have intended sexual abuse of the divine visitors (the translation of the verb "know" here is not clear). The issue is not that the objects may have been homosexual but that it was to be abuse. This was in character with the whole of their uncaring, greedy and Godless lives.

Leviticus 18:22; 20:13-14
These verses are found in the "Holiness Code" which emphasized to the Israelites that they were to be set apart to God. The context is prohibition of practices found in the nearby fertility cult of Molech. "Abomination" is a translation of the Hebrew word which specifically means idolatrous practices (not necessarily sexual). The condemnation here is a reference to the fertility worship which the Israelites were to shun.
...

1 Corinthians 6:9 and 1 Timothy 1:10
At issue are two words: malakee (found only in 1 Corinthians) and arsenokeeteh, which is in both verses. Tradition assumes a homosexual meaning of the words. Actual study reveals that in its use there, malakee means "morally weak" or, perhaps, "immoral persons". (The translation "effeminate" in the King James Version was an archaic one and, in any case, did not imply homosexuality in Greek--as it does not today.)

Arsenokeeteh means to refer directly to cult prostitution, again. Such practices were common both in Corinth and Ephesus (where Timothy was). It clearly refers, in this use and later uses in other writings, to prostitutes who engaged in both homosexual and heterosexual cult practice. Neither of these words can possible be translated to mean "homosexual" or any similar distortion of their meaning.

Romans 1:26-27
This is the only passage in Scripture which, apparently, talks about homosexual behaviour among women as well as men. The dangerous, traditional interpretation come from failure to relate it to the whole chapter. Paul talks about idolatrous people who put things or concerns before their devotion to God. As an example, he refers to fertility cult worship prevalent in Rome. The homosexual activity to which he refers is idolatrous. He implies that all of the cult worshippers engaged in it. (The interpretation that he is writing about homosexual behaviour in general would force this to say that all idolatrous people become homosexual--an obviously spurious interpretation.) The final sentence referring to their just reward is a reference to the venereal disease which was epidemic among such cults. This specific reference to fertility cult worship cannot be construed to condemn homosexual behaviour in general.

...

In reply to an earlier post on May 18, 2012 12:19:41 PM PDT
"yes but how?"

They read the same words that you do (or not... there are several different translations, after all) and interpret them in a different way from yours. It isn't as if the Bible is clear or unambiguous when it comes to homosexuality, not to mention the assertion that Leviticus is not binding on Christians today.

In reply to an earlier post on May 18, 2012 12:20:57 PM PDT
"I'm saying someone who believes in the Bible, the whole Bible, not just Christ's recorded sayings."

Do you follow all of the laws in Leviticus, and, if not, why not?

"There are pasages in the new testament condeming homosexuality."

Which passages are those?

In reply to an earlier post on May 18, 2012 12:30:42 PM PDT
Craig says:
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on May 18, 2012 12:33:47 PM PDT
AxeGrrl says:
Craig wrote: "You cannot choose to be one day Black another day White and the third day Asian, as nice as that would be for some, it is not a possibility."
~~~~

And _precisely_ the same thing is true with one's _sexual orientation_.

If you believe that one _can_ 'choose' one's sexual orientation, you could easily prove it by 'choosing' to be gay for a week.

Can you do that? :)

In reply to an earlier post on May 18, 2012 12:35:30 PM PDT
AxeGrrl says:
Craig wrote: "Both men mean well, but I would rather not have to deal with the constant reminder of the first gentleman's nightly conquests every time I go to work."
~~~~

Dear, far more people have to 'deal' with _heterosexual_ guys doing the same thing ~ babbling about their sexual 'conquests'.

It ain't a 'gay' thing, it's probably more of a _male_ thing.

In reply to an earlier post on May 18, 2012 12:39:02 PM PDT
Craig says:
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on May 18, 2012 12:43:31 PM PDT
Craig says:
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on May 18, 2012 12:48:54 PM PDT
"You cannot choose to be one day Black another day White and the third day Asian, as nice as that would be for some, it is not a possibility."

True.

"Homosexuality is in itself an inherent choice, lifestyle, or right if you are an American, nothing more and nothing less."

False. Homosexuality is about sexual *orientation*, not sexual (or any other) behavior.

A gay man feels romantic / sexual attraction towards other males, and not towards other males.

If that man is celibate his whole life, he's still gay.

If he were to marry a woman, he'd still be gay.

"To say otherwise is to argue the tangible versus the intangible."

Sexual orientation is tangible. It can be inferred via physiological and psychological responses.

"No I do agree that religion should not be the primary reason for some to not accept homosexuality, but I do have two co-workers who are this way and they both are on opposite sides of this argument. One speaks from a hedonistic point of view and does not attend church and is otherwise an atheist, the other is a deist who was shunned for his aforementioned lifestyle and has since decided to live outside the realms of religion. The second individual you would not know it by his appearance or his mannerisms and if he never talked about his partner, I would not know this. The first person is quite flamboyant and takes great effort to place the stamp "I am gay" on his forehead. Both men mean well, but I would rather not have to deal with the constant reminder of the first gentleman's nightly conquests every time I go to work."

Would you feel the same way if the man speaking of his nightly conquests was speaking of *female* conquests instead?

"This is what I feel as a nation we would have to deal with on a much larger stage and this is what I feel is not acceptable to young and impressionable kids that will have to deal with this on top of all the other hard choices and changes that take place in this world."

In other words, "*I* think homosexuality is icky, so I want every homosexual on the planet to pretend they're straight."

I note you never mention a problem with lesbians. How about that.

In reply to an earlier post on May 18, 2012 12:49:50 PM PDT
Craig says:
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on May 18, 2012 12:50:57 PM PDT
"On a serious note, one of my co-workers was married before and dated women before changing his appetite for something more to his liking..."

Alternatively, having grown up immersed in the sort of bigotry and prejudice that you display, he denied his true orientation, and only, after years of life, was he able to be honest with himself, and those around him.

I take it you never considered *that* possibility.

In reply to an earlier post on May 18, 2012 12:51:38 PM PDT
Brian Curtis says:
"There are pasages in the new testament condeming homosexuality."

Yes, and those passages are not the teachings of Jesus, and many Christians reject them for that reason.

In reply to an earlier post on May 18, 2012 12:51:58 PM PDT
"I have nothing against homosexuals"

No... well, aside from asserting that you want them to all pretend they're straight so as not to bother you.

But, yeah, aside from that, you have nothing against them. </rolls eyes>

Posted on May 18, 2012 12:53:16 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on May 18, 2012 12:54:15 PM PDT
Rev. Otter says:
it's like when Jesus saw a crowd who wanted to stone an accused adulteress, and said unto them: "Nonono, you gotta turn your hips when you throw, so the power comes *through* your throwing arm ... like THIS!"

oh wait, He didn't. He shamed them, and admonished them to worry about their own sins.

but still, it's just like that. :)

In reply to an earlier post on May 18, 2012 12:53:52 PM PDT
AxeGrrl says:
Craig wrote: "yes I can "choose" to be a lesbian"
~~~~

Uhm, Craig, are you a woman? If not, your facetious answer is just that.

If you're male, can you choose to be a gay man for a week? and have and WANT sex with another man?

Can you 'choose' to want that, Craig?

In reply to an earlier post on May 18, 2012 12:54:58 PM PDT
[Deleted by the author on Jun 5, 2012 1:04:38 PM PDT]

In reply to an earlier post on May 18, 2012 12:55:17 PM PDT
AxeGrrl says:
Craig wrote: "On a serious note, one of my co-workers was married before and dated women before changing his appetite for something more to his liking, does this not concur with your point of view"
~~~~

How many gay men DIDN'T "date women" before coming out of the closet?

That's verrrrry typical of gay men before they came out of the closet. It doesn't automatically mean they were _truly_ 'into' women at one time.
‹ Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next ›
[Add comment]
Add your own message to the discussion
To insert a product link use the format: [[ASIN:ASIN product-title]] (What's this?)
Prompts for sign-in
 


 

This discussion

Discussion in:  Religion forum
Participants:  41
Total posts:  200
Initial post:  May 18, 2012
Latest post:  Jul 20, 2012

New! Receive e-mail when new posts are made.
Tracked by 5 customers

Search Customer Discussions