Busted Halo
googling god
The Busted Halo Question Box
Ask our spiritual experts virtually anything!
This is the place where you can ask all of those burning questions that you wouldn't dare ask in person. We will post questions here (using your byline only with permission); we guarantee an answer to everyone.

Have your own question? Then pitch it to us!

Caitlin Kennell Kim
Mary
Fr. Rick Malloy, SJ
General Questions
Fr. Tom Ryan, CSP
Ecumenical, Interfaith
Neela Kale
Culture, Moral Theology
Ann Naffziger, M.A., M.Div.
Bible
Mike Hayes
Swingman/Editor
 
facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedintumblrmailfacebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedintumblrmail
Our readers asked:

What did Jesus have to say about homosexuality?

Ann Naffziger Answers:

(CNS photo courtesy Catholic Communication Campaign)

If you were to read all four gospels thoroughly in search of Jesus’ teachings on homosexuality it would be a futile endeavor. Not only would you come to the end of the gospels without finding anything attributed to Jesus on the subject, you wouldn’t even find a single reference to the issue in any context.

In fact, there are only a handful of references to homosexuality in the entire Bible, but they are found in the Old Testament and Paul’s writings. (To put it in perspective, while there are only seven references to homosexuality, there are hundreds, perhaps thousands, of references to economic justice and the laws governing the accumulation and distribution of wealth.)

Jesus’ silence on the subject suggests that an issue which can be controversial and/or fraught with emotion these days was simply not a central issue in his lifetime 2,000 years ago in the land of Palestine. The fact that he didn’t address this issue leaves us all to ponder what he might say were he here today.

 
facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedintumblrmailfacebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedintumblrmail
The Author : Ann Naffziger
Ann Naffziger is a scripture instructor and spiritual director in the San Francisco Bay area. She has has written articles on spirituality and theology for various national magazines and edited several books on the Hebrew Scriptures.
See more articles by (113).
Please note that the editorial staff reserves the right to not post comments it deems to be inappropriate and/or malicious in nature, as well as edit comments for length, clarity and fairness.
  • Alicia

    This is completely incorrect and misleading. Jesus did not directly and specifically addressed homosexuality but he did two major references in this subject. First Jesus specifically defined marriage as one man and one woman when he was asked about marriage. This clearly indicates that he does not consider that a marriage can exist between two men or two women. Further, Jesus stated: follow the commandments. One of these commandments which Jesus orders to follow is ” do not fornicate” fornication is any sexual act outside marriage. Given that Jesus specified that marriage only can happen between a male and female this means that any homosexual act is considered by him as fornication. Hence homosexual acts according to Jesus are fornication.

    • David Renfro

      So you’re not even considering in the smallest degree in your hypothesis that Jesus, in the definition you use, might be referring that ONE man and ONE woman brings a contradiction on POLYGAMY…?

    • CarBar

      It is there under the word ‘effeminate’ which is to take upon the mannerisms of a female, the posture of a female, the domestic role of a female and to wear the clothes of a female. It is there, the guilty sin of flesh just don’t wanna believe that it is.

      • Lisa Hlad Matthis

        so are you saying that “stay at home dads” since they take on the domestic role of a female in many ways are sinners? LOOK and READ what you just said..

      • CarBar

        Widowers are protected from the law.

    • easterlywind

      Alicia; You are basing your entire argument on your interpretation of an English translation of the bible. As a matter of fact, in my bible the 7th commandment says thou shalt not commit “adultery”. There is no mention of the word “fornication” in the 10 commandments in my version of the Bible. Neither the words adultery nor fornication existed in Jesus’ world at that time. Neither of these words exist in Hebrew which is the language of the original bible. Each of these translated words have vastly different meanings. Wouldn’t you agree?
      The entire gist of Jesus teachings is to love thy neighbor and do not be judgmental of others. He said to Mary Magdalene’s persecutors who were ready to stone her to death for prostitution, “let he who is without sin, cast the first stone”….(or something to that effect in Hebrew.) Right now you are throwing the stones anyway, Alicia. What was Mary Magdalene’s offence? ….Fornication, or sex outside of marriage.
      Are you so pure that on your own judgment day you can stand before God and say “I have earned the right to judge other people just as you do.”? How’s that going to work for you?
      We all need to stop trying to make others live up to our own or Jesus’ or the Bible’s standards and begin to strive to live up to them ourselves.

      • Lisa Hlad Matthis

        not to mention that the ten commandments were way before Jesus was born… or am i mistaken? i only remember two commandments that Jesus gave us.. the second being love thy neighbor as thyself.. and hating anyone is in violation of the second no matter what reason you have for hating.. how dare anyone put words in Jesus’ mouth.. i agree with you that Jesus did not want us to judge, no matter what the old testament says, those are not the teachings of Jesus Christ and everyone should know that the more you translate things into a different language over and over things are lost.. after all “MAN” can refer to mankind, humanity, the male of the species, etc.. which is it? not for us to judge

      • Sam

        I don’t think Alicia viewpoint about this issue should be seen as hatred or judgment. Alicia was just express her view point.
        Also easterlywind , remember that after Jesus ask anyone who have not sin to throw the first stone and no one did, he said something to Mary Magdalene’s “go and sin no more” so he sees what she just did as SIN.
        In our 21st Century, we seems to start using Jesus word on “Love your neighbor as yourself” as an excuse to continue in our own ways and expect no one to comment on it. Jesus will just sit up there and laugh at our ignorance….

    • Mason Lady

      Alicia, It does not “clearly indicate” what you say. He had been asked if a man could put away his wife and take another. His response was that marriage was between one man and one woman. When you consider the entire conversation, you realize Christ was simply saying “One man and one woman, not one man and several women.” Nothing else!

    • Stuart Erb

      I understand the reason for discussions like this but I can’t help to think that there are so much worse things happening in the world besides consensual sex between grown adults. As far as I believe, these issues are distractions from the real problems facing mankind.

      • Stuart Erb

        What if I told you that global hunger could end. Wouldn’t that be more worth our efforts? Rather than profiling different sins.

      • Guest

        The original Illuminati in England was literally revealed by an act of God. For the same reasons Babel was destroyed. Adam Weishaupt sent a courrier to deliver a message involving a plot to take over the government and take control from behind the scenes. This courrier was STRUCK DEAD by lightning. If it weren’t for this event, we might not have ever known that there was ever a secret, literally satanic plot.

  • bk2baker

    What is interesting about this discussion is the somewhat leading question being asked…and I paraphrase…”did Jesus mention homosexuality.” As some have already pointed out, of course not. That word had not yet been associated with same-sex relationships during Jesus’ time. So, really what we should be asking is ‘how did Jesus define marriage?’ This question is clearly answered in Matt 19:4-6 where he supports the Old Testament definition of marriage as between a man and a woman. Jesus states (in RED):

    Have you not read that He who made them at the beginning made them male and female, and said, “For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh”? So then, they are no longer two but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let not man separate (Matthew 19:4-6).

    It should be noted that ALL scholars (that I’ve researched) agree with this translation (i.e. male & female). Furthermore, Jesus condemned the sins of fornication (Matt 15:19), sexual immorality (Matt 19:9) and adultery (Matt 19:18) within the context of heterosexual marriage. In other words (and in context of Matt 19), ANY sexual activity outside of heterosexual marriage is a sin. So, from a Christian’s perspective, God supports marriage as He created it…between a man and a woman.

    So, instead of bashing Christians, you may want to find out where they’re coming from on this issue. If it is hatred for any man (gay or straight), they are wrong and themselves living in sin by the Bible’s standard. If however, their intent is to protect the definition/institution of marriage as God intended it, we should respect their religious convictions…NOT demean their faith. After all, I can rationalize Christians fearing the disapproval of God more than that of man.

    • ChrisinAK

      I think you have this wrong. Context is important here and Jesus was questioned by the Pharisees about divorce. These comments were stating that he believed no institution could deny what God brought to the marriage.

      More interesting is what he says in verse 11-12 when asked by the Pharisees why their Old testament allows them to divorce:

      11 Jesus replied, “Not everyone can accept this word, but only those to whom it has been given.12 For there are eunuchs who were born that way, and there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by others—and there are those who choose to live like eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. The one who can accept this should accept it.”

      The one who CAN accept this (status or situation) SHOULD. He made no commandment as to this matter.

      • Lisa Hlad Matthis

        so do you really think that if a man is beating and mistreating his wife, there should be no divorce and Jesus would stand by that man… so insightful you are..

      • Stuart Erb

        In that case then that man has broken his vow to love and respect his wife. Maybe Jesus is telling us here that the man should be made into a eunuch?

    • Lisa Hlad Matthis

      again you are defining marriage based on “christian” beliefs.. not “civil”. changing the “civil” law has nothing to do with changing people’s “christian” beliefs. that is the separation of church and state. those of you who are christian (and i am one of you) do not have the right to tell others who do not believe in the same thing that you do how to live. civil law exists to prevent total chaos. Does the bible state that “thou shalt stop at all red lights”? Of course not, but the civil law does.. try to think about it that way.. no one is saying that the “church” or any particular denomination must marry gays or lesbians, but they are stating that they should have the same “civil” rights as everyone else to be married in the eyes of the government.. government IS NOT Jesus or the church.. After all.. Labor Day is a national holiday but not one in the church now is it.. do ya see my point?

      • Stuart Erb

        Very intriguing perspective. I hope not to sound ignorant here, but then what is marriage without God? Is there some way to let the Christians keep their traditional ways without forcing them to change (you did say separation of Church and State) while at the same time giving the Gays what they want to feel respected as human beings? Perhaps because of my upbringing I associate marriage with religion. I could be wrong. But if I’m right, then aren’t the efforts for gays to obtain marriage contradictory to its self? I don’t believe Priests should be forced to conduct gay weddings if it goes against their beliefs. But I believe that homosexuals deserve the same human rights as everybody else. Is marriage a religious tradition?

    • JiminLA LA

      It is impossible for “ALL scholars” to agree with you, do some more researching, other than two or three of other people’s opinions. You have a closed mind to anything counter to what you have been taught, which tells me that you yourself have not done any personal study, except latch onto a few out of context verses, then parrot back to others what you have been told. (FYI, the word “homosexual” was never in the original text of the translated KJV; it was only put in when modern men chose to change the text to suit their own personal beliefs, and then force them on to their parishioners by way of “accept my teachings (pastor), or you (congregation) will burn in hell.” Anything based on fear is not “perfect love”. Why don’t you believe and exercise the first and second commandment, love the Lord your God with all your heart….. and the second is like it, love your neighbor as yourself; and leave the judging to God, who searches all men’s hearts, gay and not gay.

  • http://www.ericschuetz.com/ Eric Schuetz

    I am not a “gay basher”. I respect those that are homosexual. Hell, I have worked for a gay couple for years, and considered the with great esteem. However, Jesus needed not talk about homosexuality, as the OT did so enough…and it was pointless to discuss further. Matthew 5:17 states clearly that Jesus was not abolishing the old laws of the prophets. And one of those laws states that if a man were to lay with another man as if with a woman, both shall be stoned to death. And this is why I dislike the bible.

    • Juan Olivier

      Then you do not like the Bible because you do not know it. The law of the profits and the law of Moses are not the same thing. The stoning of gays are under Moses’s law in the old covenant. Since we are now under a new covenant for almost 2000 we do not follow the law of the old covenant. Jesus clearly demonstrates this fact by not only saying we are under a new covenant and that we should not mix the 2 but by also demonstrating it by saving Mary Magdalene from been stoned to death for adultery that would of been the proper thing to do under the old covenant.

      • http://www.ericschuetz.com/ Eric Schuetz

        Did you not read Matthew 5:17? That is NEW TESTAMENT. You can not “pick and choose” what you wish to follow from the Bible, correct? If it is that book, it is meant to be “The Word of God”, correct? If that is the case, then you are quite wrong, and are a very poor Christian. As an Atheist, I seem to know about your Bible than you do.

      • Juan Olivier

        Matthew 5:17 Do not think that I have come to
        abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill
        them.

        Do not pick and choose the parts you want. Notice the “fulfill them” part.

        Tell me if Jesus wanted to keep the old laws then why did He stop the whore from being stoned that should have been done under the old laws? Here He clearly demonstrates that the old Law is being replaced by the
        new covenant.

        Thank you once again for showing how little naturalist
        know of the Bible. You naturalist should really try know something first before try to discredit it.

      • http://www.ericschuetz.com/ Eric Schuetz

        Or, you could argue that what he demonstrated was “Do as I say, not as I do”. This is a point of either contradiction within the texts, or a demonstration of tolerance towards someone regarding a chance of redemption. Regardless, if she did not forsake her ways before him in the story, she would have been stoned in accordance to the “Old Laws”. You are just putting a spin on the story to best fit your needs in regards to the debate.

      • Juan Olivier

        I’m am not putting spin on anything. The fact is if the laws was still valid then Jesus would not have broken the law set
        by His Father by saving her. This clearly shows that the laws of the old covenant has been replaced by the new covenant, no matter what way you try to look at it.

  • Opentoread

    So I have been reading all these comments and taking notes because a relative I am living with gave me a assignment to look up what Jesus says about homosexuality and his main point that he talks about.
    Now before I continue I want to make it clear, I am bisexual, I do have a girlfriend, and I am Christian and so is this relative. If you going to hate on me go ahead I am going to love you anyways.
    And if you are christian and you have a different point of view I want to hear it, but don’t tell me what I am doing is wrong my close sisters and brothers in Christ already made that clear.

    • http://www.ericschuetz.com/ Eric Schuetz

      I am sorry, but Matthew 5:17 clearly stated that Jesus was not there to abolish the old laws of the prophets. One of which was that stated that a man that lays with another man (or woman with woman) shall be stoned to death. Now, if you read my comment I made prior to this…and about 2 hours after your initial posting here that I am replying to, I encourage you to be who you are, and be strong in yourself.

      • Gerald Daines

        A man that lays with his neighbor’s wife should be executed, then?

      • http://www.ericschuetz.com/ Eric Schuetz

        Sadly, and this is a few days late to reply. sorry. Anyway, if one is to take the bible literally, and well…if one is to call themselves a Christian, they are supposed to…yes Gerald. To death to those that commit adultery.

        With that…I refute the words of the bible. I refute religion. I follow what I see is morally right, by not only the laws of the land, but by what represents civility to others around me.

      • Lisa Hlad Matthis

        but but but… i thought Jesus came and died for my sins so that if i believe I would have eternal life and didn’t have to pay for my sins.. you are really confusing.. i guess we should go out and stone people then. . but i’m thinking if i start throwing stones at Sarah Palin’s daughter first they might lock me up for life.. even if i did it in the name of Jesus..

      • genesis667

        I believe Jesus also said go and sin no more–So while gay people can easily be forgiven, it’s the sin no more part they don’t want to heed…Just as the drunk doesn’t want to give up his booze, or the addict his drugs, or the gay his perverse lifestyle…You are attempting to re-interpret the word of god as you own way of thinking, which is fine by me, but don’t expect others to do so as well—Jesus clearly said that once you know the truth you would have been better off never being saved than being saved and continuing in sin because for you there remains no further sacrifice…He also said be not a part of this world—Not to mention him saying if your right hand causes you to sin cut it off, better to lose one member than your entire spirit..

      • http://www.ericschuetz.com/ Eric Schuetz

        Lisa, what is confusing? If you read your bible, all the laws and dictates are presented there for you. I am just pointing them out. And, as for stoning people, yeah, you will get locked up. The U.S. Supreme court has already made statutes that dictate that laws of the bible are illegal in the eyes of the laws of the United States.

      • Opentoread

        Ok thank you Mr. Eric for posting. And thank you for the advice you have given me. I will definitely stay the way I am. Even if I may no longer may go to heaven I am still going to praise God for all he has done for me thus far. ^_^

      • http://www.ericschuetz.com/ Eric Schuetz

        Nothing wrong there. You do what feels best, and that is all that matters.

      • Lisa Hlad Matthis

        so Jesus stands for slavery, cutting of the hand of the thief and selling your daughters into slavery and marriage.. thanks. how much can i tell my girlfriend she can get for her 13 year old.. she just lost her job and really needs some money..

      • http://www.ericschuetz.com/ Eric Schuetz

        *facepalm* Sounds like questions best reserved for your priest, pastor, or general clergymen.

    • Ki Brosius

      The bible was written by men. I would suggest praying. Pray. Ask Jesus if what you are doing is wrong. Look up “UPG”. Have a living relationship with your God. I highly doubt Jesus cares one way or the other whom you are having sexy fun times with, but ask him yourself. Your relatives have no business being in your sexuality even out of a misguided notion of “love”. You are at the rudder of your own ship.

    • Mason Lady

      The men who decided what went into the Bible were of a much different mindset than we are today. They were less educated and put a lot of junk in the Bible that is no longer relevant, like eating pork, stoning women for adultery or wearing clothes made of two different threads. Many good Christians are LGBT. We are here to stay, no longer ashamed, no longer fearful. We could care less what the bigots say, we demand our rights so you better get use to it! Now you tell your relative that you read what Jesus said, and he wants you to live you life with Love, Joy and Happiness.

  • lolabird

    Young teenagers today are committing suicide because they are so conflicted about their sexual orientation. What would be an answer for this?

    • michiganliberty

      They are conflicted because they have bought into the modern, secular lie. Tell them to read the Bible, and follow it commandments.

      • lolabird

        What modern, secular lie have teenagers bought into?
        Thee are 614 commandments in the Jewish sect. Which particular commandment would you suggest?
        Which particular scripture helped you to choose your sexual orientation?

      • Ki Brosius

        No, they are conflicted because bible thumpers who like to push their own beliefs on others bully them into believing they are evil. Whatever happened to love the sinner, hate the sin?

  • WaStConcerned

    Jesus and “god” are an invention of man…..it is a travesty that “the bible” even exists – it is only man’s interpretation of the myth.

    • Indya

      God does exist, just not the way religious folk would have us all believe. God is an ever-present force with no take on morality, sin, etc. God just is. The Bible is a farce, true, and possibly even Jesus, but I’ve had many spiritual experiences that have lead me to believe, without a shadow of a doubt, that this plane of existence is not the only one. Even quantum physics lends itself to this theory.

      • genesis667

        The bible has proven to be incredibly accurate, your hogwash of no morality or sin is just that, hogwash…

      • JiminLA LA

        Judging is not the way to represent yourself as a Christian… I thought Christians were expected to set the example in WORD and deed, to others?

    • michiganliberty

      Jesus of Nazareth was a real person. No serious historian disputes his existence. As to whether he was God, that is a matter of belief.

    • Ki Brosius

      God is a very pervasive mythos through every culture everywhere, enough so that I would say that either god exists or man needs god to exist, neither of which do I think spells out a weakness in mankind. It is what we do with God that causes problems. As a polytheist, I’ve taken a different path, obviously, and to me the Gods are real, very real, but they don’t teach hate, oddly enough.

  • Larry Hurst

    The Bible is incomplete….fact. “Man” wrote the Bible. Man assembled it with political inspiration….not a fax from God saying what to put in it. many many many books were left out….The Revelation of John was almost left out but put in at the last minute. If the church came out and said Jesus was IN FACT married…I would not worship Him any less. He is My Lord and Savior, married or not. And I believe with all of my heart that He would sit at the same table and eat with homosexuals before he would eat with some of the other dingbats that are in this world. Face it…Love is NOT a sin, Lust and random sex is. Get over it people!!!

  • Megan

    The bible says “Love the sinner, hate the sin” not HATE THE SINNER FOR THE SINNING. Yes it talks about Love thy Neighbor, but it also says that homosexuality is a sin. Sorry, Not trying to hate on anyone, but we can’t pick and choose what works for us. The entire bible is for us to understand. Love the Sinner, hate the sin!

    • Don

      Bible also says we shouldn’t divorce, should eat well, should give up our riches, and a thousand other countless things which many people do not do day in day out. People pick and choose all the time simply because it would be impossible to follow every literal statement to an exact degree. The Bible will always be subjectively construed to suit people’s agenda, whether for good or for bad.

    • Chloe

      The Bible never says “Love the sinner, hate the sin.” This is a common misconception about Christianity and its beliefs. This is actually a quote by St. Augustine.

  • Calvin Rumage

    I will address three tings I have read today. First. As for Jesus not saying that homosexuals are wrong. God and Jesus are the same being, and God says in Leviticus 18:22 that “thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination. Those of you who say it’s okay are condemning these people to everlasting damnation. There are other remarks I’ll have to find that says they should be stoned. Second for those who say the bible is written by man. who do you think god is?? have someone hold your hand while you write and slap you every time you write what you will now increase that punishment a thousand times hello. God told them what to write you Gits. and Third. for those who say they are gay Christians. I’ll have to find the verse, there are those who will say we cast out demons in your name he God will say I never new you. Better yet look and actually read the bible, obviously a lot never have. God help these who mistake those of the devil with that of God; Because you will be held accountable for what you do.

    • lolabird

      Love is patient; love is kind; love is not envious or boastful or arrogant or rude.

      Love does not insist on its own way; it is not irritable or resentful;

      Love does not rejoice in wrongdoing, but rejoices in the truth.

      Love bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things.

      Love never ends. . . faith, hope, and love abide, these three; but the greatest of these is love.

      Dr. Viktor Frankl, a German Jew who survived the Nazi concentration camps during the Holocaust, wrote in his book Man’s Search for Meaning of rare but remarkable examples of men who dying of hunger, yet still gave comfort, along with their last crusts of bread, to their fellow sufferers to alleviate their suffering. Even torture and extreme deprivation could not cause them to abandon their deeply-felt compassion. But those prisoners described by Frankl were Jewish. They haven’t confessed Jesus as their savior. I’m sure Paul would consign them to hell, while Jesus would embrace them and count them among His sheep.
      Would you tell us why it was okay for David and his son, Solomon, to have many wives and many concubines. Would you tell us why Jesus never mentioned homosexuality. Would you tell us when you made the choice to be ‘straight.’

      • michiganliberty

        David was punished for adultery.

      • lolabird

        His adultery with which wife? With which concubine?
        How was he punished?

    • greenlee_blue24

      Okay, how do you know that the guy who wrote the bible didn’t just change something because he didn’t agree with him? Who was their to stop him? He wasn’t perfect. Being gay is not a choice! do you tell your penis when to get hard or get soft at will?! NO! so why do you think we do?!?!?! I know for a fact god made me this way. how? because i remember and i was there. you were NOT! i do not believe in the bible. i can’t believe in something that talks about stoning your kids to death for backtalking, and slavery. the bible says you shouldn’t judge, get tattoos, eat pork or shrimp, wear clothes woven with two different kinds of fabrics, and that you can sell your kids, and that a man may have many conqubines (those are hos) here it’s illegal. take a human sexuality class. you may learn something. a person is born one of 4 ways. gay, straight, bi, or asexual. PERIOD! why should we change who we are to be accepted by ANYONE?! He’s god, he accepts us for who and what we are and loves us no matter what! you people may think your not being judgmental and discriminatory, but you are! and that’s a sin. also, if your so for what the bible says, the bible says the ultimate sin is taking the lords name in vein, so why hasn’t anyone banned that or made it against the law?! work on that and leave us alone. cause the bible isn’t the reason for your problem. you simply are uncomfortable with us, THAT is ur problem. and shame on you for using god, the bible, and religion to justify being a judgmental asshole! when you go through and been through what we go through then you can talk. You telling a gay person that being gay is wrong and a choice is like a man telling a woman, “oh don’t tell me natural child birth hurt! i do not BELIEVE it hurt!” uh, hello? you’ve never felt it so how would u know?! HYPOCRITE!

      • Kimberly Clark Robbins

        So, just because you can’t control your physical self means that you can just act on it? Then ANY married MAN or boyfriend who gets himself arroused should just be able to attack whomever they choose, because they do not have a choice for what they do! (and I say MAN because men want to always say they have no control over themselves…however this also applies to women) I personally do not believe that ANYONE should engage in sexual acts outside of marriage period. It is ALL a sin. I do not play favorites for sexual orientation.

      • greenlee_blue24

        then before you go all judgmental on someone, ESPECIALLY someone you’ve never met before, (which how you can say being gay is a sin and an abomination, yet you people passing judgment on others isn’t a sin i’ll never know!) why don’t you protest the other things the bible says is wrong. like SWEARING, like GETTING A DIVORCE, like TATTOO’S, like WEARING AN ARTICLE OF CLOTHING WOVEN WITH TWO DIFFERENT FABRICS, like EATING SHRIMP OR PORK, or the ULTIMATE sin….TAKING THE LORD’S NAME IN VEIN! how come i’ve never seen those into huge issues, or outawed. AND the bible says, “let not your religion govern or make your laws. gee seperation of church and state. pretty damn nice isn’t it. why don’t you take that holier than thou stick out of your ass and stop using God, and Jesus Christ, and the Bible, and Religion as a SCAPEGOAT to express your prejudicy and admit your real problem….HOMSEXUALITY MAKES YOU UNCOMFORTABLE! deal with it. get over it. and get a life. your no true christian. and doesn’t the bible say a man can marry many conquebines…in this country that’s called a bigimist and thats illegal. funny how you people pick and choose what you want to believe out of the bible and then leave US with the burden of INEQUALITY! this country was founded on being the land of the free and millions have lost their lives for that right. and you have the audasity to say “oh this man and woman can get married, but this man and that man can’t” it must be a scary place in your mind. and ur arguments are retarded and idiotic and hypocritical. i for one am not going to “control” myself by sacrificing who i am and my happiness to make BIGOTS LIKE YOU COMFORTABLE. Me: Point, You: ZIPPO! have a gay day! :) ps-try to prove what i said in this argument wrong. u can’t no matter what u say. you wont win this argument or this fight. so get over it. and mind your own damn business and leave us in peace!

      • michiganliberty

        The Lord’s name in “vain.” Not VEIN

      • greenlee_blue24

        You know, I find that out of everything I wrote…the fact that THAT is what you chose to comment about is down right hilarious! Thank you for proving my point! LOL

      • Kimberly Clark Robbins

        Actually, I did not get judgemental on “someone”. I made a statement for EVERYONE. Any sexual act outside of marriage is a sin. My comment was in regards to the argument that always comes up and that has to do with the way a person “feels” about it. That is why I made the comment I did. The finger is always pointed to homosexuality, but the same applies to heterosexuality. Satan will use anyones weaknesses and desires to sway you for his benefit. I was not playing favorites. I DO believe swearing is wrong, so is getting a divorce. God never intended ANYONE to divorce and it says so in the bible. My family also does not eat shrimp or pork and we don’t take the Lord’s name in vain. By the way I am not jewish either, so there is not any specific history for me to abide by those things. I choose it because I think there is more to it than just God making “crazy” rules. I can’t say I have much of an opinion about the tattoo thing. I don’t have one and don’t intend to get one. However, I think that one has more to do with the relation to pagan rituals at the time and now it may come down more to your own heart in that matter. I will gladly admit that is one that I would need to look into more. Laws in this world are not necessarily of God. Just like when Jesus was on this earth he talked about giving to Caesar what is Caesar and giving to God what is God’s. We are to live in the world not of the world. This country, however, was created under God and those values. We also have the freedome to voice our opinions about it, so some topics will come up. This country is slowly slipping away from a lot of the moral values it was built on. Every day more and more forbidden words, situations, actions, etc are being allowed on tv, movies, radio, internet…nothing is sacred anymore. In regards to Homosexuality, it does NOT make me uncomfortable AT ALL. I have friends of all shapes, sizes, ethnic backgrounds, and yes even sexual orientations. It doesn’t make me like them any differently. HOWEVER, it doesn’t mean that I have to agree with everything every one of my friends chooses to do. I also know that all of my decisions are not always about happiness. God can bring joy in situations that seem anything but joyful. I also know that situations I was sure would bring me happiness, ended up being empty and anything but happy. My feelings and desires are not reliable. But relying on Jesus is reliable. I am not a perfect person. I do not claim to be. I have sinned and continue to slip up and sin. But my desire as a Christian is to shed light and yes, at times, even speak boldly for what I believe. I am saddened by what I see on tv, news, etc. I can hardly let my kids watch tv for what they might be exposed to. I am not hypocrytical because I do not believe I am above anyone and I expect the same consideration of everyone when it comes to marriage.

      • michiganliberty

        No one is a homosexual. There only people who perform homosexual acts. Men having intercourse with men is clearly prohibited in the Bible. Now you do not have to accept the Bible as the Word of God. But you cannot pretend that it endorses something that it condemns.

      • Lisa Hlad Matthis

        so is eating shellfish.. do you eat lobster? crab?? sinner.. same as any other sin.

      • genesis667

        You are filled with hatred…You should seek counseling…

      • JiminLA LA

        And, from your posts on this thread you are not much better in the hatred market…

    • Don

      Leviticus, from the old testament, generally refers to laws which dealt with ruling of the Israel nations prior to the arrival of Jesus. In fact, many of the teachings of Jesus overrule and take precedence above and beyond the old testament. Hence, the idea of a “new testament” which represents a covenant crafted between Christ and humanity.

    • Indya

      The word “abomination” is a gross misinterpretation. While you’re on your high horse, maybe you should read the passages used to condemn gays in their entirety. Leviticus is especially taken out of context for the purpose of supporting the wrongful judgment of gays. Also, research when the Bible was canonized and by who. Then, ask yourself “how devine can a book really be if its content is the result of a simple majority vote?”

      • michiganliberty

        As this is a free society, you can choose to not believe that the Bible is the Word of God or an even a good book of wisdom literature. But you should not try to twist to serve your own 21st Century, secular agenda.

      • Ki Brosius

        We all live in a secular world. Unless you plan on walling yourself off in a compound somewhere it might do you well to realize that you are at odds with almost everyone 30 and under. The 21st Century Secular Agenda is to love one another and not use our religion to hate.

      • genesis667

        Not surprising, Jesus said the path to destruction is broad, so one would expect if you follow the word of God to be far outside of the mainstream view, Jesus further illustrated this when he said ye shall be hated for my namesake, because by following him we are rejecting mans word today, which is what I do, I care not what any man here thinks–I care what Jesus thinks, and his word tells me to pick up my cross and follow him, it doesn’t say follow the latest hip trend, the latest political position, it says to follow him., you can follow the crowd to your own demise, that is your choice…

      • JiminLA LA

        Good for you! Then why don’t you stop posting on threads like this, since you obviously have everything wrapped up, and every other single person has everything wrong, according to you (and no, you are not speaking for the Bible) ?

    • Lisa Hlad Matthis

      do you eat lobster? sinner.

      • genesis667

        You seem to be of the belief that as long as others sin it’s okay for you too as well–Dangerous path to go down, I find it hard to believe that you are a Christian when your attitude is near contempt for the word of God–

    • JiminLA LA

      Great example of the “Christian attitude”, in your description of other people. At least take a lesson on English before you spout your self-righteous remarks and force them on others.

  • Kurt Heinz Jurgen Kornfield

    I believe homosexuality was mentioned in the New Testament, 1 Corinthians 6:9-10.

    • PWB

      Corinthians is an Epistle (letter) from St. Paul. The only places where we hear from Jesus is in the Gospels.

    • gratefulhead

      So what does Paul talking about temple prostitution have to do with this topic, please? I’m tired of people bringing up this BS in a completely ahistorical context, particularly when the words on the page are not on point to the claim being made. The fact that thousands of years later, bigots reinterpreted these passages and claimed they refer to homosexuality is really an awful thing; the fact that so many people are deceived by these lies,. even worse.

    • jaun sanchez

      Maybe you ought to read that first I am sick of these televangelists quoting that passage out of context, then pea brains turn around and do the same thing

      • michiganliberty

        1 Corinthians 6:9-10 makes it clear that clear that idolatry, theft, and homosexuality are sins. Can you explain this in some way that idolatry, theft, and homosexuality are virtues, according to Christ?

      • Lisa Hlad Matthis

        i guess all republicans are not getting into heaven then since they idolize money.. huh??

      • JiminLA LA

        Talk about needing a writing lesson… You need to follow your own advice when assaulting others for their use of the English language. Hurts doesn’t it? Having to actually take inventory of yourself before pointing out “the sliver in your brother’s eye?” Oh, that’s right, I forgot: Anyone who doesn’t believe the way you do is not your brother. Nice theology.

    • Chloe

      The point of this article was whether Jesus condemns or allows homosexuality. You are right it saying that Paul mentions homosexuality in Corinthians, but he is not the ultimate authority on Christianity. In his day, he was a common man, a tent maker. In his many letters to the early churches, he speaks so much truth to the early Christians of that day. However, a lot of his writings were his opinions and convictions, like his personal stance on homosexuality. The bigger question here is whether Jesus of Nazareth, the ultimate teacher and Son of God, had anything to say regarding the subject of homosexuality.
      Christians are going to disagree on a lot of ethical and moral issues; its practically inevitable. But we need to put our focus and energy on Jesus and his teachings. If he did not explicitly say his beliefs about homosexuality, then it probably was not important to him.

    • JiminLA LA

      Yes, that is your belief, so why must you cast it on others and expect them to follow suit or “burn in hell”?

  • Bill Board

    Perhaps he would have said if God wanted homo’s, he would have made Adam and Steve.

    • Doc2222

      Hey Bill! Great job of parroting that same old tired-ash conservative moron cliche! I’m sure Adolph is beaming up at you from hell with a well deserved atta boy!

      • Bill Board

        You must be an insulted homo.

    • lolabird

      Would you be so kind as to tell us who Cain married? Was it his sister?

  • Sean Permann

    well if Jesus was the word and the word was God from the beggining im sure he would have the same thought of homosexuality as God

    • Sensual A

      God said don’t eat pork or get haircuts in Leviticus. Not causing a national uproar though.

    • JiminLA LA

      Even though I don’t agree with you on your position; you bring up a very interesting view point. One that wasn’t on this entire thread.

  • American Pancake

    Very interesting discussions. A lot of things people want to believe will never be verified. Jesus may himself have been gay. Who knows?. He certainly did not uphold the so called “traditional family values of marriage” like so many conservative Christians suggest is the goal. His closest confidants, those who he surrounded himself with were all men. Something to think about. In the end, the Bible has been interpreted by people to bolster both evil and good deeds. It is like a voluminous Rorschach test that tell us more about ourselves than anything else.

  • bentleyinspections@yahoo.com

    Hey I have only read a few post/articles but I like what i have read. I have been so frustrated with the political right “Christians”, unquote, and their blatant misrepresentation of the Bible. It is so pleasing to my heart to find people who understand Gods words for what they are and really how utterly simple his instruction. It seems that when you twist the Bible into some heavy complicated manual you lose sight of it’s basic meaning…BE GOOD TO EACH OTHER, BE GOOD TO THE EARTH, BE GOOD TO NATURE, DON’T HATE, FORGIVE and by all means LOVE EACH OTHER. I have to tell you the Hippies had it right all the time. Thank you for this great site and I will be back.

  • Rachel L. Fox

    Why would homosexuality not have been a central issue then if it is now? Homosexuals have been in society since the beginning of time. If it really was a big issue, he would have addressed it…If he were around today, he would have said the same things about loving others unconditionally that he said back then. I can’t imagine Jesus saying, “love everyone….except gays”.

  • Deborah Howe

    “Not everyone can accept this teaching, but only those to whom it is given. For there are eunuchs who have been so from birth, and there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by others, and there are eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. Let anyone accept this who can.” (Matthew 19:11-12)

    Eunuchs born are not without testicles, just as eunuchs who have made themselves for the kingdom of heaven i.e. priests are not without testicles.
    So Jesus did address this issue and does not condemn them for being born that way for it is the way God made them.

    • Dana F. Davis

      Actually no. He’s speaking about those who sexually abstain because they see love of “pure” as a higher calling – hence, for example, Catholic priests.

  • Rhonda McCauley

    I reread Leviticus. And I now feel t
    hat most of it is a crock, reminds me of the Quran.

    • JiminLA LA

      Why don’t you try reading other passages, referring to love everyone? What would happen if you had a muslim move in next door to you? He is following what he believes is right, with the same gusto as you do as a Christian, or at least I am assuming this, and he believes in good as you do. I’m not a muslim, but at least for the regular muslim not the terrorists we only read about, they take personal conduct as seriously as others do. Really ignorant and uneducated remark about someone else’s “Bible”.

      • Rhonda McCauley

        Shiite muslims are good people, Sunni’s not so much.

  • BMS

    My cousins were all raised Catholic. Of the 31 first cousins I have, only about 5 of them married in the church and are raising children in the church. Most of them have taught their children nothing about God at all. They’re all heterosexual, but at least half of them have been divorced, several have kids by multiple partners.

    At my Catholic intentional community I can think of at least 5 same sex couples who have stayed together for more than 10 years, all of whom have children who have been raised in the church, who come every week and participate in mass and in other church activities. These kids are leading the youth group, being confirmed, volunteering in the food pantry, and singing in the choir.

    Now, explain to me how the same sex couples are doing something wrong?

    • Muzambiringa

      Noone can “explain” GOD’s LAW I’m afraid. Take it or leave it.

      • BMS

        God’s law is love. Where’s yours for your fellow humans and their kids? What is to be gained by vilifying these families and making them feel unwelcome? I don’t believe God is nearly as narrow as people would like him to be to justify their own narrowness.

      • Muzambiringa

        If I didn’t love my neighbor, I’d let him “crack-on” [pun fortuitous] unto perdition!
        #LoveIsTough

      • Jerry glanzmann

        I do believe that God would say it is not for man to judge another man. That would be his job. So, if you truly believe in God, you would say do what you want because I am not your judge. These pretend religious people are so backwards. None of us are God. So, none of us should judge anothers lifestyle.

      • Tamlew

        Maybe you “believe” God said not to judge another man but that has NO basis in reality. What God actually said is the HE is the Judge, so we can’t go raping, torturing, beheading, setting on fire and burying alive people based on them not agreeing with our belief system. Islam is doing that, Christians aren’t… AND God commanded us to actually know Him enough and accept what He says about The Knowledge of Good and Evil and not make up our own ideas apart from His, SO THAT WE CAN DISCERN WHAT IS ACTUALLY RIGHT AND WRONG. … Massive fail, your post.

      • Eddie

        Yet in the Old Testament that is exactly what he commanded his people to do! Burn this place to ground he said! Take the woman you choose he said! So I would suggest reading the New Testament a little more and putting some faith in Jesus’s message!

      • Jerry Glanzmann

        The massive fail is your judgemental mentality. The pope said we need to affect all people and he is my spiritual leader. I’ll go with him and not your view. His thoughts mean something. Yours, do not.

      • Tamlew

        redefining what is good and what is bad ..what is right and what is wrong is this same fatal error Adam and Eve made in the garden… that’s what it is to eat of the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. the Bible says if an angel himself comes and gives you a different gospel kick him out of your house, don’t listen to him, wipe the dust off your feet, walk away, do not listen, do not engage in conversation because he’s from Satan. the Vatican and the Pope, the teachings of the Catholic Church do not teach the true gospel of Jesus Christ as it is in the Bible. therefore the Pope is satanic and you will see soon enough and it doesn’t matter what I say it matters what the Bible says. the Vatican has a high powered Binocular aimed at space called Lucifer and they’re looking for aliens who are not intergalactic they are inter-dimensional.. they are fallen angels or demons. the Vatican also already said when they find the aliens they are going to have to redefine the gospel.. well they already have redefined the gospel that is the quintessential proof that they are satanic. the Vatican and the Catholic Church and the Pope are going to be the bedrock of the coming great deception and you’re already lined up to swallow it all God help you

      • Jerry Glanzmann

        Have fun with that thought process. I will respectfully disagree and live a good life with my wife and kids and teach them to allow people to live their lives. You can live yours in fear and with the mindset you are better than everyone else. I’m certain it doesn’t matter and you can sit on your pedestal. Enjoy your night I am done with crazy talk you are spewing.

      • Tamlew

        just because I say Gods standard of holiness does not change and is not subject to popular vote and does not change as a culture changes does not mean that I would ever force anybody to think the way I do. there is however a system of religion that is coming to a city near you that throws homosexuals off buildings, rapes and burns people alive and burries them alive and skins them alive and beheads them for not thinking the way they do and the reason they’ve been able to gain access to the country you live in is because people who say that they are Christians don’t even know who God is and keep trying to water him down and change his standard of holiness I’m sorry this bothers you but it’s true

      • Tamlew

        My mindset is not that I am better than anyone. If you were a true Christian you would know that. Only people who KNOW they are sinners are truly available for the rescue provided them by a Savior. What I am concerned about for you and others who WILL NOT accept God’s standard of holiness for themselves and try to warn others who are perishing, and point them in the direction of rescue and salvation, is that YOU ARE IN DIRECT DANGER OF STANDING BEFORE A HOLY GOD WHO WILL SAY TO YOU, “DEPART FROM ME, I NEVER KNEW YOU.” BECAUSE YOU INSIST ON RE-DEFINING WHO GOD IS TO FIT YOUR POLITICALLY CORRECT “STATE THINK”

      • Ichabod Cray

        Sooo….when a man rapes a women, you’re ok with him avoiding punishment by agreeing to marrying her and paying her father 50 sheckels? Because if you aren’t ok with that, then YOU ARE WATERING DOWN GOD’S LAW AND YOU WILL STAND BEFORE HIM AND BE JUDGED!

        You people are insane. Really.

      • Ichabod Cray

        “Islam is doing that, Christians aren’t”

        You forgot the word “anymore” at the end of that statement.

      • Tamlew

        God Himself says, “The road to life is narrow and few there are who find it… The road to destruction is WIDE and OVERPOPULATED.”

      • JiminLA LA

        It appears your capitalization key was stuck….

      • Muzambiringa

        Appearances can be deceiving…

    • Trinity Lobo

      They are rebelling against Gods law of “one man and one woman ” . Homosexuality is a union of sterility, and there are no children from this union.
      - People siding homosexuals tend to speak for them. That’s what is happening these days, however what is a sin, is a sin and cannot be changed in the eyes of god.
      Homosexuality is a mental disorder which is the truth, because as per logic no man can love a man and as per science in the theory of magnetism, like poles repel and opposite poles attract

      • Bella

        Oh dear, oh dear! Your “logic” is terribly flawed. Is it a mental disorder or a moral one? Is it born/induced in people, or a lifestyle choice? Why *can’t* a man love another man? David and Jonathan did! (“Jonathan became one in spirit with David, and he loved him as himself…’Jonathan is slain on your high places. 26I
        am distressed for you, my brother Jonathan; you have been very pleasant
        to me. Your love to me was more wonderful than the love of women.’ ” 1 Sam 18:1 & 2 Sam 1:25-6)

        Yes, it’s a union of sterility, but that’s only an issue in an Old Testament mindset. Surely you can move beyond the cultural idea that any unfruitful relationship is cursed by God? How would you apply such a view to infertile couples, or those who marry when too old to have children?

        Surely the law of love supersedes that of any other! It did in Jesus’ eyes.

      • Joel Simon

        First, the Hebrew word for “love” used in 1 sam 18:1 is not the typical word used for sexual activity. This word for “love” has clear political and diplomatic connotations (see 1 Samuel 16:21 and 1 Kings 5:1). Second, David’s comparison of his relationship with Jonathan with that of women is probably a reference to his experience with King Saul’s daughter. He was promised one of Saul’s daughters for killing Goliath. But Saul continued to add conditions upon this marriage with the underlying desire to have David killed in battle (1 Samuel 18:17, 25). The love David had received from Jonathan was greater than anything he could have received from Saul’s daughter. Third, the Bible clearly and consistently denounces homosexuality (Genesis 1:26-27; Leviticus 18:22; 20:13; Romans 1:18-25). Extolling a homosexual love between David and Jonathan would be contradicting the prohibitions of it found throughout the Bible.
        Please do not preach something where there is nothing.

      • Bella

        Firstly, I’m not preaching. Secondly, I wasn’t actually stating (or intending to state) that David and Jonathan had a homosexual relationship. My point was that Trinity Lobo said “no man can love a man”, which is patently not true. It was in that context that I used David and Jonathan as an example. They loved each other. What kind of love is not the point; the point is that they loved, with a true, deep and abiding love, so Trinity’s argument is fatally flawed in its foundational premise. Thirdly, I think you’ve conflated David’s expression “your love to me” (which is what the bible says) and “your love FOR me”, which is how you’ve interpreted it. They’re not the same.

        And if two men can have agape love for each other, then the only argument against them expressing that sexually is a circular one, depending on an initial presumption of that which you set out to conclude.

      • Joel Simon

        I’m sorry Bella if you read my comment and think that I’m conflating between LOVE TO vs. FOR! There is only one thing I’ve stated and that is the word Love in your quoted scripture not indicating a sexual relationship or anything physical therein.

        The primary evidence for such readings interprets Jonathan’s “love” (Hebrew root: ahev) for David as homosexual (see 1 Samuel 20:17; 2 Samuel 1:26). But other alleged homoerotic passages (such as Genesis 19:5 or Judges 19:22) employ the verb yada (“to know”) not ahev. Ahev does suggest strong affection in the Bible; it does not seem to unambiguously imply affection for a member of one’s own gender. For example, Saul is said to “love” (ahev) David, as well (1 Samuel 16:21).

        Closer to the mark are those interpretations that see political overtones to the charged word “love.” Thus, Jonathan’s love for David points to his loyalty and devotion. This covenantal aspect of the relationship is further indicated by the appearance of “covenant” (berit) in verse 3. David’s covenantal relationship with King Hiram of Tyre will also be described as “love” (same Hebrew root) in 1 Kings 5:1.

        It sounds like I’m repeating myself to explain the context of the verse and the Hebrew in it. So, again it’s not wrong for love to be present between two humans of same gender but when someone is using scripture to say Eros is ok when all we can consider scriptural is Agape or Phileo it’s manipulating it for suiting a worldview.

        Circular argument! Really?

      • Bella

        Yes, really. You’re presuming an exclusion of sexual expression of agape love, and nowhere does the bible do that. In fact, it does the opposite, with analogies between God’s relationship with the church and a marriage relationship/eros love (eg. Song of Songs).

        The OT view was that an unfruitful relationship was cursed by God. By definition, therefore, they also believed homosexual relationships to be an abomination to God because they were a *choice* for an unfruitful relationship. But since we no longer believe that an unfruitful relationship is cursed, the rest of it is a baseless era-driven construction.

      • Joel Simon

        Wow! Sexual expression of agape love! In the same vein of confidence that you firmly seem to affirm that statement. Could you produce one verse, just one that uses the word agape in a sexual context. Both linguistically and theologically you just made a leap to conflate something very clear to the historians and theologians for all this while.

        From a theological standpoint in the OT there are clear verses to the Israelites identifying homosexuality as an abomination as you have pointed and in my previous comment I raised the two verses Gen 19:5 and Judges 19:22 which show homosexuality again both in clear violation of what God wanted resulting in destruction of the subject of the verse.

        In the matter of NT Christ was clear in stating that God ordained marriage between Man and woman (this goes back to my first comment in this thread- Christ was addressing the issue of Divorce and not homosexuality directly- many LGBT advocates say Christ was mysteriously silent on this topic or say this passage doesn’t deal with homosexuality at all- He was answering the question at hand as divorce was the loophole in the mosaic law that kept getting abused and He ended that debate there in a way only He could by clarifying on how God saw marriage- heterosexual and eternal), if your not satisfied with Christ saying it clearly enough you have Paul talking in Romans 1:26-27 & 1 Corinthians 6:9! Can’t be clearer than this- scripture cannot contradict itself- it is a hard task trying to make a worldview from vague inferences and making an argument against something which is prohibited elsewhere in the same scripture with utter clarity!

        To clarify my stand on Eros: When shared between husband and wife, erotic love can be a wonderful thing, but because of our fallen sin nature, expressions of eros too often become porneia (as in col 3:5). In dealing with eros, human beings tend to go to extremes, becoming either ascetics or hedonists. The ascetic completely eschews sensual or sexual love. The hedonist sees unrestrained sexual passion and all forms of sensuality as perfectly natural and to be indulged. The biblical view is a balance between these two sinful extremes. Within the bond of heterosexual marriage, God celebrates the beauty of sexual love: “Let my lover come into his garden and taste its choice fruits. I have come into my garden, my sister, my bride; I have gathered my myrrh with my spice. I have eaten my honeycomb and my honey; I have drunk my wine and my milk. Eat, O friends, and drink; drink your fill, O lovers” (Song of Solomon 4:16—5:1). Outside of biblical marriage, eros becomes distorted and sinful.

        Without going on a tangent: Did I read you seem to espouse the idea that homosexuality is driven innately? From a professional medical scientific stand I can clearly provide you evidence that there isn’t one piece of credible literature showing it is- happy to be corrected.

      • Bella

        I bet you wouldn’t be happy to be corrected at all, so I’m not even going to bother to try! Let me address some of your other points (far more briefly than you did, since I don’t think anyone apprecaites that kind of wall of text):

        1) I didn’t say anything about “using the word agape in a sexual context”. I said “sexual expression of agape love”. If you don’t understand the difference between that and erotic love, then you’re missing a dimension of the spectrum.

        2) I disagree with your interpretation of Jesus’ point in the Matthew/Mark passage. It’s very plain that a) he wasn’t excluding GSI divorce (which both men and women could instigate), but only AM divorce (which only men could instigate), and b) because of that, his emphasis was on gender equality, which (of course) is not an issue in a same-gender marriage. (And by the way, even God doesn’t see marriage as eternal. I assume you meant to say lifelong.)

        3) The word Paul uses in the Greek (often translated as “homosexuals”) is the same one used in the Septuagint version of Gen 19, and it means “an*l r*pists”, not homosexuals who are in a loving relationship. Greeks had a range of words for different kinds of homosexual relationships and activity, and across the board – in biblical and secular usage – that word is used of an*l r*pe. Rhetorius Aegyptius even uses it of heterosexual relationships where women are the ones r*ped, so it clearly doesn’t mean “homosexuals”.

        4) You said “Outside of biblical marriage, eros becomes distorted and sinful.” I don’t quite know what you mean by “biblical marriage”, but I’m totally sure you don’t mean “marriage as exemplified, and commanded and blessed by God, in the bible”. Because if you did, that includes polygyny, forced marriage and r*pe, complete lack of female autonomy, sexual slavery, and a host of other things. What I suspect you *actually* mean is “Victorian marriage” – but don’t kid yourself that that’s the same thing.

      • Eddie

        Considering that the homosexual population is growing and they claim to be born this way, I don’t think God would create a being to persecute them! New studies have shown that 1/4 of people on earth do not identify with being heterosexual! So everyone on this forum Jesus and God must hate 25% if its population! It jus makes no sense! Effeminate men are born that way and are often thought of as gay even in their formative years in school because it’s so easily recognizable at such a young age! Same goes for some females! These arguments are archaic and ridiculous! Those that are judging shall be judged!

      • Eddie

        Bella,

        I think the problem with interpreting scripture is too many people assume too much in general! Didn’t Jesus Christ die on the cross to basically make the Old Testament and its archaic rituals etc enert and create a place of love at a human level for each individual! It’s so sad that many many people do not follow Jesuses words because they are stuck on interpreted meanings of the “old” testament!

      • Eddie

        Again the original Hebrew bible condemned homosexuality as a way to worship false gods as even today satanist commit sodomy! Has nothing to do with love between two parties of the same sex. To get a real look at this stuff we have to look at the original meaning not king James translations or anyone else’s for that matter. If you can’t read the original you will not know the true meankng

      • Joel Simon

        Secondly, Jesus affirmed that very same Old Testament mindset when he talked about marriage and divorce. Matt 19 is super clear on His stance and on how God looks at marriage being heterosexual yesterday today and forever. If you are looking for what Christ said about polygamy and rape and incest it will be a hint that doesn’t end because historically those were not a loophole that needed addressing. Lastly, infertility in couples and old couples not bearing children- plenty of examples where God blessed the barren womb as result to prayer and as a blessing.

      • Bella

        And plenty of examples where he didn’t. But that’s irrelevant to the principles behind entering into marriage. Either barren couples are blessed by God WITHOUT having children, or they’re not. If they are, then no infertile relationship is proof of God’s curse. If not, then no couple incapable of having children should get married.

      • Joel Simon

        Oh yes, God has a purpose if he doesn’t bless a couple to conceive naturally but rather allows them two choices- stay in prayer and wait in Him or choose modern medicine and continue in prayer which is His blessing to us as a species in this age. The argumentative last statement that no couple who cannot conceive should therefore avoid marriage is a big leap! Why? In heterosexual marriage there is always a place for a miracle to conceive of God permits. Not so in a homosexual union.

      • Bella

        Of course God can bless or not bless a couple with children. But you’re totally missing my point, which is asking that if a couple do not have children – by any means, natural or artificial – would you then argue that God had cursed them?

      • Joel Simon

        Bella, If I am aiming to become the premier of South Australia and I just kept trying and praying- God either blesses my effort or doesn’t. Does this mean I see myself as cursed? it is not a mutually exclusive situation is it? in the same vein we cannot say those who did not conceive are cursed as a result of not being blessed.

      • Bella

        Bingo! And therefore, you cannot use the absence of fertility in the relationship as some kind of “proof” that the relationship is not approved by God.

      • Joel Simon

        The absence of fertility in heterosexuals Madame!! Did you ignore that part of my earlier comment altogether? I’ve been clear in this distinction in my prev comments- I said God can work a miracle/ open the barren womb as an answer to prayer- where does this apply? Heterosexual union alone!! Being infertile does not mean you are cursed- I further explained rationally how anyone saying if it’s not blessed it’s a curse so they shouldn’t marry is a nonsensical stance. But, how do you then take the concept of fertility and apply that to a homosexual union where inherently they are going against the purposes of their reproductive systems and His Word? How can we stitch up such a logic even for the sake of argument?

      • Bella

        I’m not sure whether you’re being deliberately obtuse or genuinely unable to comprehend a simple line of argument, Joel. Let me try to state it very very simply:
        1) Arguing against homosexuality on the grounds that it’s incapable of producing children depends on a presumption that only fertile relationships are valid.
        2) Arguing against homosexuality on the grounds that they’re “going against the purposes of their reproductive systems” depends on a presumption that only reproductive relationships are valid.
        3) “Going against His Word” is **exactly** what modern (heterosexual) marriage does. A whole bunch of extremely unpleasant (to us, today) practices were part of OT marriage, and God-ordained. Therefore you cannot logically use that argument against homosexual marriages unless you also use it against heterosexual ones.

        I’m trying to point out to you that *you’re* the one whose argument is illogical; all I’m doing is feeding back to you the logical extension of your own arguments, and that’s what you’re saying is “stitch[ing] up a logic”. You bet it is! That’s exactly my point.

      • Joel Simon

        You reckon I’m failing to see reason in the light of His word? Or your failing to see His word in the light of humanistic/existentialist logic?

        1. & 2.) In the subject of the argument- marriage- YES the ability to produce offspring is the one unique mark of this adult conjugal consensual sexual comprehensive relationship which propagates the species and society itself. If it weren’t such a unique purpose to society that marriage serves then it wouldn’t need regulating from the state or the moral sanctuary from God. Since you explore the humanistic argument so well: also logically extend the same idea to explore homosexual marriage as the norm for society and see where it takes
        the species.

        3.) to this and part of the previous points I’ve tried to provide a detailed response in the comment which is pending moderation and I will wait for a day to see if it goes thru if it doesn’t I’ll try rewording it- but essentially I do see biblical marriage as comprehensive and addresses ur concerns.

      • Bella

        I think you have me pegged as an atheist. I’m not; I’m Christian. The point is, I don’t ignore a crucial phrase in “Love the Lord your God with all your heart AND MIND and soul and strength”. Truth is truth; I’m not ashamed to use all the ways of examining it that there are, because no matter how it’s looked at, truth can’t become a lie. If it falls down under argument, it isn’t truth.

        Ok, so you put fruitfulness as the main point of marriage. Interesting. You do realise that the Creation account doesn’t? (Gen 2:24 doesn’t mention children.) And that the subsequent command to “be fruitful and fill the earth” is grossly overfulfilled now? And by the way, the state regulated marriage because it determined legitimacy and inheritance, neither of which is dependent on it now.

        At no point have I suggested that homosexual marriage should or would become the norm. It will always be a minority option because the homosexual component of the population stays steady at about 10%. Not only has that been the case throughout recorded history (despite gay marriage existing, as it did in Ancient Egypt, Ancient Rome, China, and medieval Europe), but it’s a self-regulating thing – there are no biological offspring, and even were adoptive children to become homosexual by modelling (which has been shown not to occur), THEY wouldn’t reproduce unless forced into heterosexual relationships.

        If I’ve ignored any of your points, it’s only because your responses are way too long, and I don’t intend to make mine even longer. I try to focus on your main points. So the remedy is in your own hands – make them shorter, and I won’t ignore parts of them.

      • Joel Simon

        Just adding further doubts from last night: Lets say my arguments are illogical and all you are doing is feeding the logical extension of my arguments which are sufficient to break down my original argument. Let me do the same: Where does your foundation as a Christian Rationalist stand- 1. on the argument that homosexuals are equal humans and therefore they require equal rights so any moral teaching contrary must be outdated/false?
        2. on the argument that the Bible is but a compilation of human work which means it is erroneous and it cannot be the inspired word of God and therefore can we ever accept the message of the Bible in whole or parts?
        3. Are your sources (whichever they may be and I see your links on the thread elsewhere are non-scriptural non-scholars) worthy of the same trust that God demands in Him? When you point to several passages in the scripture as unfit for society today are you not putting your entire faith in the “simple lines of argument/ logic” which you derive from human brains which are even by rationalist/ existential/ epistemological/ Kantian analysis of logic unpalatable.

        I am just pointing out at the direction i see you are heading. I am happy with it if you find Peace with it and are able to meet your Lord one day. Cheers.

      • Bella

        Oh, I can give plenty of more academic sources, but this is not that kind of a discussion.

        As briefly as I can describe it, my argument stands on a very close and careful reading of the whole bible – which proves it NOT to be inerrant or free from contradictions, proves some passages/verses to be completely opposed to modern scientific knowledge (and I do mean knowledge, not theories), and proves it to contain profoundly conflicting perceptions of God. From there, taking the inspiration of God’s spirit, combined with an understanding of historical and lexicographical analysis of texts, in order to arrive at a logically- and spiritually-consistent interpretation of the text.

      • Joel Simon

        Bella this response is to both comments you’ve made this morning-
        Bella, I try to respond in as few words as I can- I don’t get any pleasure in arguing for the sake of it but try to address the topic under discussion (as Christianly as I can) because I’d rather make my argument clear than be ambiguous with oversimplification. If you feel that we cannot continue- please feel free to not respond. I am a servant of 2 Timothy 3:16 and am happy to be corrected with scripture, philosophy and science. I don’t think either should be contradictory and I’ve never said entire Bible scripture is literal and nothing is allegory- YES we have dogmatic drama but its all to achieve the challenge of 1 John 4:1. If nothing else- Please forgive my inability to be one of the 144 character limit generation!

        I have seen your desire to identify as Christian shine thru the comments at times and I never will or did call u one without Christ inside- that judgement is unreservedly for our Maker to make.

        I try and look for answers not just this rational/ existential quandary but I also look up if someone else has asked this before and the answers given by scholars both secular / Christian and professional Christian apologists who deal with these matters daily. I am not perfect and I try to put the matter to the test with care that I don’t cross 1 Cor 8:1. Have you read this balanced stance on rationalizing every thing “bible. org/article/knowledge-puffs-—-deflating-popular-proverb” & lastly, my whole “interesting” view on marriage comes from the Harvard journal of Law & public policy article “what is marriage: a defense- Girgis S. et al” it’s also in book form on Amazon and a summary of that scholarly work is on their website. I’m sure you can always disagree with the defense- but God bless you for reading and debating! Enjoyed it.

      • Bella

        I’m not referring to things which are obviously allegory. I’m referring to things which are presented as *fact*. See, for example, Gen 1 (vv.5, 8 & 13 conflict with v.16), Gen 30:37-42 (that’s not how genetics works!), the conflicting census figures in Ez.2 and Neh.7, and the fundamental inconsistencies about when Jesus was crucified (Mark 15:25 vs John 19:14) and resurrected (which varies depending on which year it was and thus what day the Passover was, but isn’t Friday to Sunday).

        There are countless other examples I could give along those lines, and you have to read the text analytically rather than blindly in order to find them. But they’re there, and any plausible view of the bible needs to take them into account.

      • Joel Simon

        Bella, I have exhorted you to not presume there is a contradictory verse until you have researched not only one side of the passage but also do a cursory search of the said contradiction. I do not want to do the searching for you but here goes-
        1: defendinginerrancy. com/bible-solutions/Mark_15.25_(cf._John_19.14). php

        2: carm. org/bible-difficulties/joshua-esther/why-are-statistics-ezra-2-and-nehemiah-7-different

        3: quora. com/How-do-biblical-literalists-explain-Genesis-30-37-39

        4. godandscience. org/apologetics/day-age. html

        If as a regularly published scientific researcher I say science has all the answers to disprove a “claim” from the bible I’ll be lying and a fool for expecting science isn’t evolving it’s methods of inquiry. I’m listening to science to inform my faith but science isn’t “fact” otherwise evolutionary biologists would just stop re-hypothesising evolutionary process after Darwin but I read this last month in Genome Biology and rechallenges *facts* in “expression of multiple horizontally acquired genes is a hallmark of both vertebrate and invertebrate genomes: Crisp A et al, 2015, 16:50″. Hope u enjoy science as much as I do for a living and I also enjoy the word of God as inspired wholly of Him.

      • Eddie

        What these people do not get is they have no idea what was meant by the words originally written because (a) we did not live in that day (the argument that homosexuality was not big back then is ludicrous because there is so much evidence to contradict them (b) there are various “scholarly” papers and evidence to suggest that there was much about Jesus we do not know because the bible skips 19 years of his life, during which we have evidence to suggest he traveled the world, studied with the monarchs of hinduism, and preached of love for all to all people, (c) these people only know how to read, but have no idea what it is like to feel the spirit within them and love as he did. We get caught up way too much on words. Its nice to hear Bella someone with half a brain, but unfortunately there is no changing this debate for these individuals. And it is likely (from what I believe they will continue to walk this earth until they learn their lesson). In the lost gospels it says adam and eve cursed humanity to walk outside of the garden of eden for 5500 years (who knows how long years was back then or if years it meant in the context of our calendar). I will follow the same path as Jesus. Study various religions, live with the spirit of christ in my heart, and try and learn from and accept everyone even ignorant individuals who seem to hate the people i love most for no apparent reason at all based on translations and interpretations of words passed down from generation to generation. We will never know the original words written.

      • Joel Simon

        You reckon I’m failing to see reason in the light of His word? Or your failing to see His word in the light of humanistic/existentialist logic?

        1. & 2.) In the subject of the argument- marriage- YES the ability to produce offspring is the one unique mark/purpose of this adult conjugal consensual sexual comprehensive relationship which propagates the species and society itself. If it weren’t such a unique purpose to society that marriage serves then it wouldn’t need regulating from the state or the moral sanctuary from God. No other state regulated relationship is similar name one that is as unique as this.

        Since you explore the humanistic argument so well: also logically extend the same idea to explore homosexual marriage as the norm for society and see where it takes the species. Maybe if you want to delve into the strength of revisionist definition of marriage you could also tell me how you would argue against polygamy in Victorian marriage model in the years ahead?

        I’ve adequately addressed infertile heterosexual unions from scripture and logic- u don’t like it.

        I’ve adequately addressed homosexuality- from scripture, current dearth of scientific literature support to state it’s innateness, it’s logical folly and have been clear and polite and yet u say I’m perhaps too dull to reason with you! Hubris? I wish I pulled u up for each time u ignored a fact I’ve pointed out.

        So, your claim that any person who stands for heterosexual marriage as the original design between the biological Adam and Eve in human evolution uses the moral code within the bible and is using fertility as a supporting rationale is faulty is a poor claim. You can do better. Let’s agree to disagree then and leave it to the Lords judgement- neither of our opinions will matter then.

        3.) to this and part of the previous points I’ve tried to provide a detailed response in the comment which is pending moderation and I will wait for a day to see if it goes thru if it doesn’t I’ll try rewording it- but essentially I do see biblical marriage as comprehensive and addresses ur concerns.

      • Eddie

        There is nothing humanistic or existential about your arguments. I do not think you understand the definition of humanistic or existential logic. They are forms of therapeutic practice that is basically the exact opposite of what you present in your posts. It is about looking at a person from a wholelistic perspective taking them for what they are and accepting “all”

      • Joel Simon

        Hello Eddie:

        Are you assuming humanistic or existential philosophy relates to psychotherapy alone as an application?

        In Bella’s posts the arguments aim at dismantling the premise of my argument which is presence of the moral code of right and wrong on the grounds of deism. This will go on to the arguments we were dealing with pertaining to the credibility of scripture and its moral applications. This is how humanism is defined broadly “”Humanism” typically refers to a non-theistic life stance centred on human agency, and looking to science instead of religious dogma in order to understand the world”- So for a argument/stance to work in support of a deity and simultaneously selectively critiques the morality from that very deity we cannot employ a argument that inherently abhors the same deity. Can we?

        On the other hand, existential philosophy the primary belief is that thinking begins with the “human subject”- in the debating I clearly got a sense that Bella was aiming at this: “An existentialist reading of the Bible would demand that the reader recognize that he is an existing subject studying the words more as a recollection of events. This is in contrast to looking at a collection of “truths” that are outside and unrelated to the reader, but may develop a sense of reality/God. Such a reader is not obligated to follow the commandments as if an external agent is forcing them upon him, but as though they are inside him and guiding him from inside.” (this is again wikipedia for you).

        Do you see where I was aiming at in claiming such. I was quite clear by the end of the discussion that- if anyone has set themselves on a journey to uncover God its going to be one crazy ride without an answer- through rational inquiry alone. However, if one sets themselves on a journey to know God personally (as a Christian does) and one day finds salvation while in the journey has all these dogmatic drama, its fine. But we must always presume that God is and always will be Truth. We can never achieve agreement on all things in our fickle pursuit of reason.

      • Eddie

        I see what you are saying however, Humanism can not be replaced with humanistic. They are quite different. I think your use of existential theology in this case is sound in the way one will read the bible etc. However, if so many individuals can interpret Gods words in so many different ways, it calls to question your viewpoints in God’s eyes. In my opinion its not the words that are spoken but the translation one’s heart hears. And anything that hears something contrary to Jesus’s true teachings does not make sense to me. He said do not judge and love thy neighbor. It is not picking and choosing which commandments to follow. Do you think God hates woman, because the old testament is extremely man biased (but that was the culture of the time not necessarily in my opinion how the Holy Spirit would see things). Jesus was persecuted because it was heresy to claim to be the Son of God because it was supposedly against the Old Testament and he was murdered over it. Now a whole religion is based on his teachings even though a large group of people felt he was a heretic. Spiritual and cultural growth are part of life, and we have to read the bible in its own context. There are those that are spiritual. Don’t get me wrong I respect and love you for your beliefs thats who you are. I do not judge… It saddens me to hear people persecute any being in the name of God, just as many muslims start war in the name of the same God. This has always been so. People have always used religion as a way to express their personal feelings, progranda, or political agenda on others. Jesus Christ and God should never be used in such a manner and it is a sad state of affairs. I heard some comment that Gay people are a sign of the end times. We may be close to end times but it certainly is not because gay people can now get married in America. There has been corruption in religion since its inception. Our bible is missing gospels. Mary Magdalene’s gospel was taking out because she was a woman. So I just do not believe in holding so hard fast to rules, and let the spirit of Jesus live through me with love and acceptance of even polytheistic religions because it is not my place to state that they will be judged one day for their beliefs when they grew up in that culture their entire life. Just my perspective. We all have different perspectives and if we all respected each other with love and acceptance this conversation would be different.

      • Joel Simon

        I’ve just plugged in “Humanistic” on the online Dictionary and it clearly points me towards “(sometimes initial capital letter) a person who follows a form of scientific or philosophical humanism.” I guess that’s sorted then?

        Wrt Gospel of Mary or any canonical issues please try reading on the “historical method” and the detailed explanation of the method of choosing the books of scripture (as done in council of Nicea and Hippo)- i can see you are skeptical of the “process” and not the actual choices we have in the Bible. I wish it was as simple as you make it out to be- gender issues/ political agendas/ personal preference issues. It is a scholarly issue and it should be examined within the widely accepted norms or what comprises of Canon- politics change over the centuries, gender boundaries change over time and yet there isn’t a scholarly critique to the textual accuracy that has stood the test of time.

        I suggest reading up on the authorship issues of the claimed Gnostic gospels. The gospel of Mary was not written by Mary Magdalene or any other Mary of the Bible. The Gnostic teachings found in the gospel of Mary date it to the late 2nd century A.D. at the earliest. As a result, there is no validity to its teachings. Similar to the gospel of Thomas, the gospel of Philip, and the gospel of Judas, the gospel of Mary is a Gnostic forgery, using the name of a biblical character in an attempt to give validity to heretical teachings. The only value in studying the gospel of Mary is in learning what heresies existed in the early centuries of the Christian church.

        I find your questions are answered by apologists on “gotquestions . org”, All the best.

      • Joel Simon

        Also just adding that I’ve posted a reply to the long discussion point above but the filter doesn’t allow it to get published! So it’s pending moderator approval. Hope it does get approved. Cheers.

      • Eddie

        Our planet can not support the population as it currently stands, so i would hardly call continued population growth Gods gift to planet earth. Especially children growing up in third world countries starving. The logic of so many of you has no historical or practical application to real world issues. Also I do not see how a planned birth is any less a “gift from God.” In that sense surrogacy practices are available to us because God let it happen and “Surrogacy” is also a Gift from God

      • Joel Simon

        So Eddie- the solution lies in?

      • Eddie

        The solution lies in people using condoms and birth control. But the point is the premise that procreation in a relationship defines God’s acceptance of one’s love for another is ludicrous or we would not have a literal plaque of overpopulation in our world today. Procreation is actually causing the decay and killing earth. So there is just no substance to any procreation argument. A planned surrogacy birth is no less a gift from god then it is for anyone else.

      • Joel Simon

        I agree that procreation is a blessing- whether natural or artificial. But how does one reach the conclusion that the argument doesn’t hold against same sex marriage? My entire point was about the same sex union having zero reproductive ability (naturally or artificially). I also agree that we can abuse procreation as a species and have resulted in lopsided density of population on the earth but sustainability is another debate altogether. Have u thought about the fact that over 75.8% of population on earth live in just Asia and Africa – so the issue is education as u suggested, health schemes and time to realise the fruit are what I additionally feel- the countries which are in these zones are non Judaeo Christian as u are aware! So the theory that the Biblical “be fruitful and multiply” needs knocking down is unfounded.

      • Eddie

        Well there is something to be said for the definition of Maya. Buddhism is not so much a religion but a way of life, and many of their philosophies are Synonymous with that of christian belief system. They do not specifically believe in a specific God, but provide a forum of understanding a souls journey regardless of who your God is, and provide a way to meditate and pray to your God. So there are even Christian Buddhists who believe the word of God that follow a buddhist way of life. You speak of Muslims yet they are worshiping the same God you do, and spouting out scriptures to justify worse than homosexuality based on their belief system and words they feel were holy and cast down from generation to generation. This is going to be my last post on the issue cause its continued circles. I respect your belief system, however, I would encourage you to move beyond words. This world is illusory. A construct created for the human soul to learn and evolve. We are running out of time. This illusion will come to an end within the next century or two as the vail between heaven, hell, and earth has been shattered. Hence the sightings of Aliens etc (which are really demons and the ancient ones who were once worshipped in sumerian and egyptian culture). Aleister Crowley (who claimed to be the beast and claimed to open the gates of hell to this dimension in his book of law made it clear that Jesus has left his throne and allowed the evil ones to enter this world. I think in these times spreading propaganda about a class of human beings is a waste of precious energy. Respect people for who they are. Be cautious with your words and your heart because Jesus will be sitting on a human thrown soon and you will be able to ask him himself what his views on homosexuality are. Until then do not assume that you know what God’s design is. There have been many people in the past who thought they knew the word of God or the message of God and were way wrong. I keep saying this but it is true. When they killed Jesus they thought they were following the word of God. Just be careful man. I wish you the best in your life and send love and happiness your way!

      • Joel Simon

        Eddie, Buddhism I knew in India was and is a religion and followed with devoted followers and a religious head who is the Dalai Lama. Their philosophy meets and intertwined with Hinduism and its view on karma and moksha. The ideology is no way Christian in parallel as is exposed by Ravi Zacharias in his work “Jesus and Buddha”- recommended read. I never assume I am all knowing but I presume and have trust in my Lord who saves us all from Sin and gives existence a purpose. The Hindu(vedantic) and Buddhist school of thought leads to moksha or oneness with Brahman or a vague nothingness because it’s all illusion anyway and these eastern ideologies are not leading to Elohim. With Islam this common claim that “Allah” is Elohim or a generic word to mean God doesn’t stand up to critical historical or scriptural analysis so pls don’t assume that is the case unless you can prove Mohd isn’t referring to his ancestral idol allah which was one of the pre-Islamic pagan gods. I wish u well too.

      • Michael Mckenna

        Jesus Christ never married, never had children, hung around with 12 men in dresses, his fag hag was a prostitute. Religion is so laughable and full of destruction.

      • Eddie

        Very little evidence to suggest that Mary Magdalene was indeed a prostitute. The prostitute referred to was a different Mary. Also there is a lot of evidence to support that he and marry were a couple because in many documents outside the bible she is revered just as Jesus was and taught much about Jesus and her teachings after his death.

      • Michael Mckenna

        Typical change everything to suite oneself or face fact that this book is based on total manipulation.

      • Eddie

        exactly. I keep saying it but religion and these comments and judgements are a sad state of affairs. If we are at the end times as many on this post have suggested they are the ones that have to answer to God for their hate.

      • Eddie

        A union of sterility? We have a plaque of overpopulation in this country! Maybe a natural progression of life to have planned births instead of so many people have accidental children. I find it funny the procreation arguments as of heterosexuals are not having sex for their own enjoyment rather than for procreation. Gays procreate too, however studies have shown because they are almost always planned births that the children end up in more successful stable homes becaus they are not accidents from a night of “lustful” experience and yes heterosexuals are lustful too!

      • Tamlew

        Yes, and don’t forget that the Bible says marriage is a picture of Christ and His church. So homosexual marriage is an UTTER MOCKERY of God. . . Add to that the fact that they took the rainbow, God’s own symbol of how He won’t punish the perversion in the world with a world wide flood again, to MOCK GOD FURTHER in their PRIDE parades and events. “God opposes the PROUD but gives grace to the humble”… But God will not be mocked, the wages of sin are death… It’s just that this time He is going to punish a non-believing and perverted world not with a world wide flood but with FIRE.

      • Eddie

        Then humble yourself! It just may be possible that you do not have it all figured out! People are not born of sin and are innocent at birth… Well according to many Christian beliefs! I can tell you by observing my family members that these individuals are born this way, and they would not be created for persecution by their one true God! Wake up the world is changing by design, and those that propagate hate are not of the jolt spirit but if darkness!

    • Edem

      I can tell of hundreds of couples who have been married for over 50 years just in my neighbourhood. Iniquity is thriving over there, I guess…divorce rate is on the increase..that’s environmental it’s societal. Over here divorce is seen as not a good option though it’s present and increasing too. Matt 5:32. You see people get married for the wrong reasons, without God in perspective. You want to marry a rich guy/ lady for the money sake. What do you expect? Mathew 9:3-12. We look for convinience, christianity is not that convinient. I can’t just imagine it…living with a fellow man as a couple. I don’t even need God to know it’s sickness. Devilish!

      • Eddie

        Yea but there are also a lot of woman (not all of course) that are persecuted and treated unfairly in many eastern countries. If they had the cultural freedom to leave their abusive husbands many would. Many have migrated to the Western States to escape such cultural context. I do not think anyone should be in a marriage where they are treated unequally or unfairly or abused. Its a very old world view where woman had no freedom and the men could do what they want. And the old testament which many religious people on here refer to is extremely biased toward men as was the culture of its day. it does not mean that persecution of woman is Gods will. Each word was written by man and interpreted in the hearts of man. Not one man is pure therefore the words of the bible are not pure either. This is why I live my life through Jesus’s direct words and take everything else in its cultural context and try my hardest to get to the root of their true meaning by looking at the original hebrew words and starting to learn the hebrew language so that I can read directly on my own!

      • Edem

        We don’t seem to need God in most of our important decisions so we suffer for it…I am guilty of this. A man shall leave his father and mother and cliff to his wife…does that mean something? People are not forced by culture to stay in an abusive relationship over here so u can choose to stay or check out…but I observe that people marry for the wrong reasons, they don’t put God in perspective….something he created…we neglect the manufacturer and use the product by our own wisdom then destruction is around the corner. There is no reason whatsoever a man should marry a man. It’s a Devilish Idea

      • Eddie

        Again it is not your place to decide what decisions people make that are of God’s design and which one does not. As stated previously Jesus was killed over such ignorance. You can not possibly comprehend God’s presence or feelings on any issues until you stand before him. Until then love thy neighbor and respect all. Calling something devilish is not your place nor do you have the authority to make such a presumption

      • Edem

        Until you have a personal relationship with Jesus, you will see the bible as some stories people put together. Matt 19:16…that man was a good man by man’s definition but never knew jesus. He kept all the commandments. So you can do all the good things and not still know christ. Well if I can’t discern what is right and wrong and able to say it, then I have a problem…if I can’t tell my kids, family and friends this is wrong! I have a big problem. If we keep accepting what is wrong because we have no idea how God sees it..then you can see a the problem

      • Tamlew

        If you cannot as you say, “possibly know what God thinks or feels about anything until you stand before Him.” You have not read the Bible from the perspective of being Born Again and should brace yourself for the experience of standing before Him and hearing Him say to you, “Depart from me, I never knew you.” However, thankfully, it is not only possible to know God, it is essential.

      • Eddie

        Yet Jesus’s message was very different from the Old Testament message. When Matthew asked Jesus shall we burn this city to the ground he replied “you do not of the spirit you are from!” So your words are falling on deaf ears. I have a strong personal relationship with the holy trinity (the father, Holy Spirit, and Jesus Christ). Whose to say the messages I receive from the Holy Spirit that guide my life are any less than yours. The bible says God is innumerable in powers and a human being can not comprehend him! So in my opinion claiming to know how someone would be judged or how God will respond is heresy in its rarest form! Well not so rare in this site it appears! Being born again within the jolt spirit removes judgement, hate, and leaves nothing but love for all mankind and animals alike! The spouting words of many are not if the love of the jolt spirit but the hearts of men using God to justify themselves! Many of you are following the ways of the old which changed the moment Jesus died on that cross! My God does not condone raping women, a man taking any woman they please, the discrimination of women, nor of any other minority! Be careful that your “born again” guidance didn’t coming from your heart rather than your spirit flowing from the same breadth as the Holy Spirit! I breathe from the same breathe Jesus did’, and his spirit lives within me everyday! That is why I only preach love and non judgement as it is not anyone’s place to make assumptions on what will happen at the pearly gates! And those that don’t believe what I believe and continue propagate darkness from the highest of light will like me as you say be judged one day! I have no fear of that day and I look forward to it because I do not believe in a God of fear but love!

    • Tamlew

      Catholicism does not inform, teach or lead people into true Christianity. The Vatican is a satanic organization. There is only One True Reality, sorry if that bothers you, but I’m sure that if you had cancer and your doctor told “there is only One True Cure.” You wouldn’t whine about the unfair exclusivity of that. You would GLADLY take the cure and be grateful there was a way at all…. Homosexuality AND Catholicism MASSIVELY FAIL and MISS The One Way to Be Saved.

      • Ichabod Cray

        “One True Reality”

        Pssst…..it isn’t yours!

  • Carl Grimes

    god doesn’t care, i don’t know why you should.

    • Muzambiringa

      Because, you need God and HE doesn’t need you?

      • JiminLA LA

        Another capitalization key is stuck…

      • Muzambiringa

        hA hA hA! hOW MANY “caps lock” KEYS HAVE YOU GOT ON THINE PC?

  • Roy Glover

    Who so ever beliveth in me shall enter the gates of heaven. Pretty straight forward and to the point. He didn’t say “well except this group or that” his blood washed away all mans sins. Not just the people you feel should get in. Let he who is without sin cast the first stone. Judge not lest be judged. We are but children in his eyes. We do not have his wisdom to judge who is right or wrong. The best thing you can do as a Christian is to live Christ like. If you keep adhering to the old testament you are not a Christian. Christ sent a different message and example from his father. God was power hungry, blood thirsty and unforgiving. He gave man free will but constantly tested it. This is the old testament. Christ accepted everyone, forgave everyone, didnt demand devotion or obedience. You accepted him and he would love you in return. This is what it is to be a Christian to follow what HE taught.

    • Name

      If you’re not following the Old Testament, you’re not following all of the Scripture. Even Jesus quoted the OT several times in his ministry, and on several occasions proved that he understood more than the Pharisees and Sadducees because he is God.

      While it is true that Jesus came to fulfill the old covenant made between God and the Israelites, he did not completely abolish Old Testament teachings. Rather, he reiterated many of them. If we are to follow Christ and have fellowship with the Lord, we should follow these teachings and use Christ as an example, a reference point.

      “God was power hungry, blood thirsty and unforgiving. He gave man free will but constantly tested it.” He constantly tested their faith in Him, not their free will. And God was ABSOLUTELY forgiving in the Old Testament! All of the times that the Israelites rebelled or disobeyed, broke the Ten Commandments and the Law, and followed after other gods, the Lord forgave them each time. Why? Because they were His chosen people with whom He had made a covenant.
      A covenant, you have to realize, is so much heavier than a simple promise. A covenant is an agreement between two or more persons that, if broken, can lead to the death of one of the parties. The Israelites broke the covenant several times, but God never let them die because they had not fulfilled their purpose, and He had too much love to let His people suffer.

    • Muzambiringa

      Silly sophistry I’m afraid!

powered by the Paulists