DANGEROUS "Holy Roller" mentality

Bigotry due to willful ignorance. Facts don't matter.

 

Can you cite chapter and verse in the synoptic gospels where Jesus of Nazareth condemned homosexuality?
Take all the time you need; we'll wait.

 

No and not taking time but you might can type in search box "men lying with men as with women working". This is where in one place it refers to homosexuality being wrong in my understandimy. Might can even ask "is homosexuality wrong according to the Bible" and it might point out the scripture.

 

Leviticus is one then I seen in romans1:26-27 is another place

 

Well said, my friend, well said.......

"Live long and prosper"

 

Or where premarital sex, multiple partner sex such as threesomes, group orgy's, wife/husband sharing, even plain old adultery is condemned? Because when you do I'll show you passages where not only is it allowed it is even rewarded.

Toss out Jesus saying anything in Leviticus because it was written centuries before his existence.

I'll give you an example of the shit that happened among the Christianity founders lineage. Look at the book of Samuel and David's antics. It can be interpreted that David and Johnathan had sexual relations. A love so strong that Johnathan relinquished his place on father Saul's throne to David. David accumulates brides, concubines, and slaves all of whom he had sex with. Then he spies the exhibitionist Bathsheba nude on a roof top, has an affair with her getting her pregnant, and sends her husband to war to be killed so he can have her as his own. This is the penis that Jesus eventually comes from. So basically Jesus is condemning his ancestors bisexuality.

Concerning "Holy Rollers" or most any clergy they use the bible to promote their agenda which usually falls to the making of money. The bottom line is one can interpret the bible any way they want. It has been written and rewritten so much plus many writings left out that it is not a good source for guidance concerning sexual matters.

 

A VERY good point to bring up; the Bible has been written and re-written so many times over the decades......centuries....that it is, now, almost impossible for the average "layman" to decipher what, indeed, is "fact" and what is "fiction".

As to "Holy Roller" evangelists........let's just say I've never encountered one that was NOT "rolling in the green stuff" yet.......

"Live long and prosper"

 

Boy, there is a lot of good debate here. The Old Testament is a tough one to understand. We are so separated from the Bronze Age that it was written in that given our own context it is very hard to understand the context it was written in not to mention Gods purpose of the day. Or when you start to parse words and how they were used in their day giving those words meaning.

However the words of Jesus are much more clear, love one another, love your enemy, love your neighbor as your self…it becomes very hard to come away from reading His words with a spirit of condemnation and hate. That is certainty not how he treated people.
My best advice is to read it for yourself and you are going to have to do a deep dive on this one and parse words to figure out what they meant in the day they were written.
If not, then stay in it for the basic tenets of who Jesus is and who he came for. You simply can not come away from it not understanding that fundamentally Jesus wants us to love one another, including those who sin(thats all of us by the way). So my take away is it is much wiser for me to focus on loving people regardless of sin.

I am not saying men loving men or women loving women is sin. I am simply saying lets focus on loving people first.

 

That one doesn't work in light of John 1. “In the beginning was the Word, and the word was with God and was God…” basically stating Jesus was with God and was God even in creation.

 

...yes, I DO believe we should ALL start to TRY to show a little BROTHERHOOD and begin to LOVE one another, and to ACCEPT each other for what we ARE.

Sadly, in today's all-too-violent world, rife with far too many hate crimes, I see far MORE intolerance than TOLERANCE.

Look at the sharp skipe in hate crimes over the past several years, targeting gays, Jews, African and Asian-Americans.

So stupid, sad, and vicious.

We still have a long, long road to travel before we FINALLY start to see BROTHERHOOD begin to make a valiant fight against what the Bible is SUPPOSED to represent.....LOVE for our fellow man.

Though I am as far removed from a Bible scholar as you can get, even I know that, ironically, there is also much violence within its pages, not to mention incest, and human sacrifice.

Recall how Joseph (of the "Coat Of Many Colors") was thrown down a well by his own brothers and sold into slavery?

Let me now finish here by saying that far too many "Bible Thumpers" seem to sweep this one under the rug:

"Judge not, lest ye be judged".........

"Live long and prosper"

 

See:

Incest in the Bible - Wikipedia

"Live long and prosper"

 

That's correct. But what do they mean? Leviticus is Old Testament, the same book that tells us we shouldn't eat certain foods or wear clothing of different threads. Lev. 18:22 says, literally: w’eth-zäkhār lö’ tiškav miškevē ‘iššâ Translation: With man you shall not lie lyings of a woman. Abomination is that." (No, I didn't leave out any words.) That's what it says. What does it mean? "Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination." KJV "You shall not lie with a male as with a woman, it is an abomination" NRSV. “Do not have sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman; that is detestable” (NIV).

To understand what it really means, some try to figure out the historical context. For a small state in a rough neighborhood, wedged between Assyrians, Babylonians and Egyptians, keeping up the population was important, and unions between Adam and Steve wouldn't do the job. So the Lord says: "Be fruitful and multiply." Also, it was customary to humiliate a defeated enemy by raping the males as well as the women, and men had a special status in Israelite society. Note that the Leviticus passage only applies to males. Then, too, there were male temple or shrine prostitutes (qadesh) serving pagan gods who were anathema to Yahweh, and male homosexuality may have been associated with those. If this is true, it is arguable that the command was geared to a particular social context that no longer applies. The planet is overpopulated, raping men by enemy men seems to have gone out of style, and male temple or shrine prostitution is a thing of the past. Others argue, however, that "God's word" is literal,absolute, and eternal.

Still others argue that the passage doesn't quite say that at all. The language "the lyings of a woman" (miškevē) is an unusual expression, but it occurs in one other biblical passage: in Gen. 49:4, the verse explicitly refers the activity of Reuben with his father’s concubine. The man addressed in Leviticus is prohibited from having sex with his mother's man, presumably his father--i.e., incestuous homosexual intercourse (David T. Stewart, ‘Ancient Sexual Laws: Text and Intertext of the Biblical Holiness Code and Hittite Law’ (Ph.D. diss., University of California, Berkeley, 2000); Bruce Wells (2014)‘The Grammar and Meaning of Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13 Reconsidered’;K. Renato Lings, “The ‘Lyings’ of a Woman: Male-Male Incest in Leviticus 18:22?,” in Theology & Sexuality (London: Equinox Printing, 15:2, May 2009), 240.; or adulterous homosexual intercourse involving a married man.(Joosten, New Interpretation of Leviticus 18:22 (Par. 20:13) and its Ethical Implications* ). The context of Lev. 18:22 is a series of laws on incest: sexual intercourse with a mother, sister, granddaughter, aunt, and proximate female in-laws is forbidden (Lev. 18:6–17), so an interpretation involving incest or perhaps adulterous intercourse would be plausible.

Paul Romans TBC

 

You keep saying "what does it mean". To you something different than it does me I guess but seems pretty simple to me specially when you look at the build of the to different sexes but I don't care if you practice homosexually or not, I've said what I think it means.

 

I'm not referring what Jesus said
I'm referring to what the whole Bible says about it but if you do or don't practice homosexuality or any other sin against God then so be it.

 

I don't--practice homosexuality, that is. I'm happily married, four kids and strictly hetero. No sex outside of marriage. I was pointing out that the Hebrew version isn't "pretty simple"--at least to my way of thinking. Some scholars agree. My wife said once(before gay marriage was a thing): "It's too bad gays can't get married so they can enjoy the kind of relationship we have." Another reason I'm glad I married her!

 

I don't know Hebrew either but still not that hard to understand a lot of it as well nature shows to me it's pretty obvious

 

The other source

Lets look now at Romans 1:26-27. Romans was written in anticipation of Paul's forthcoming visit to Rome. His overall objective was to introduce himself to the Roman Christians, who were divided into Gentile and Jewish components, and to try to bring them together into a single community. He starts off by telling the Jews how the Gentiles have sinned against God, then telling them how they themselves have sinned, but explaining that although we're all in the same boat as sinners, God has given us a way out through the sacrifice of Jesus. In developing the Gentile part, he explains that their sin was to reject a clear message from God, reveled through nature, as to what He was, and turning instead to the worship of creatures instead of the Creator. Therefore, "God gave them over to their sins," and they turned to unnatural acts--male and female homosexuality. Lots to unpack there. Notably, for the first time female homosexual acts are condemned, along with the gay males. Also, he frames it in terms of "unnatural" conduct. Some commentators consider this an example of Paul's "natural theology"--the notion that God shows us what He wants through nature, as well as the Bible. Birds do it, bees do it, even educated fleas do it. (Of course we know that some of them engaged in homosexual activity as well, but the general idea was to reproduce.) He might have been influenced by Greco-Roman Stoicism, which was quite the rage at the time. The Stoics pioneered the concept of natural moral law, which the Catholic Church has since taken over.

Those who believe that everything Paul says is the "word of God" will consider this the final answer. Those who think he might have gotten some things wrong because of the times in which he lived might think otherwise. Others wonder what exactly he was talking about. I'm sure cman thinks it's all perfectly clear, but others wonder if Paul meant all same sex relations or just ones like those he was describing, which were promiscuous and lustful. He may have had in mind the male temple prostitutes, who were active in the cult of the goddess Cybelle. And the pederasts who kept pubescent boys in their care. That happens to be my take. If Paul was aware of the possibility of a loving relationship between same sex couples, he doesn't seem to be talking about it, and seems to consider homosexuality to be abnormal. But of course he did not have the benefit of modern scholarship on the subject. He seems to have been as tolerant of slavery as he was intolerant of homosexuals. And he probably wasn't aware he was writing scripture.

Rev. Adam Hamilton, pastor of the Church of the Resurrection megachurch in Leawood Kansas, with whose views I tend to be in synch, contends that most passages of scripture are timeless verities, but some (e.g., those condoning slavery, violence, and the subordination of women), are not. "Some scriptures seem clearly shaped by the cultural norms and theological and social presuppositions of their authors." Like theologian Marcus Borg, he advocates a hermeneutic based on Jesus' prime directive of love to separate the former from the latter. On that basis, he and I reject lustful or promiscuous relationships of any kind, but are accepting of committed same sex relationships as something Paul was not talking about and may not have been able to conceive of.
That, of course, is my opinion. I might note that Paul says, after describing the sins of the Gentiles, that "we must not judge them," since we're sinners ourselves. (Rom. 14)

 

I wonder why? Homosexuals can't reproduce--at least by homosexual means--so what would be the point of castrating them. And wouldn't castrating them thwart God's plan of being fruitful and multiplying.

 

That one, in all honesty, truly is beyond my comprehension.

Perhaps Mr. Graham thought that castrating gay men would prevent them from having sex with other men?

On this one, I would not, in all honesty, care to hazard more than a guess........

"Live long and prosper"