Christian Views on Homosexuality

[Smartt33]

Hey Smartt........might wanna take your gay bias somewhere else.

By the way, might wanna give this a read.......



LGBT Texts

What a weak argument from a ****** organization ABS.

These perverts will try and claim everything as somehow homo, just to further their sick agenda and nasty lifestyle.

"****** organization"? Might wanna check the website again Sunnidiot, as it is a SCHOLAR SITE for religions from all over the world. Even your fucked up theology is in there.

Go ahead........pull something up that proves Sacred Texts Archives is a "****** organization".

Prove your assertion douche.

It is clear that you have no idea how I feel about gays. However, I will take the information, and read it over with an open mind. I canot just read it and make a shallow rsponse.

As to a "scholar site of people from religions of all kinds, whenever you get a group like that together, you usually cannot tust any of them to do any less than compromise. Their inomation is not trustworthy in most cases.

 

[Smartt33]

Hey Smartt........might wanna take your gay bias somewhere else.

Are you saying that the Christian view of homosexuality is not wanted here. What are you afraid of? Read the title.

 

[indianaboy]

Sinning is against G*d, and it does not matter what your sin is. There have only been two people (some later discussion) that lived that did not sin, and neither walk among us today.

Who would be the second, other than Jesus?

 

[ABikerSailor]

What a weak argument from a ****** organization ABS.

These perverts will try and claim everything as somehow homo, just to further their sick agenda and nasty lifestyle.

"****** organization"? Might wanna check the website again Sunnidiot, as it is a SCHOLAR SITE for religions from all over the world. Even your fucked up theology is in there.

Go ahead........pull something up that proves Sacred Texts Archives is a "****** organization".

Prove your assertion douche.

It is clear that you have no idea how I feel about gays. However, I will take the information, and read it over with an open mind. I canot just read it and make a shallow rsponse.

As to a "scholar site of people from religions of all kinds, whenever you get a group like that together, you usually cannot tust any of them to do any less than compromise. Their inomation is not trustworthy in most cases.

No dipshit.....if you had actually bothered to go to the site, you would see that it is organized by religion, and there is no mixing of religions on the site.

Are you really that ******* stupid, or do you just play an idiot on tv?

 

[Smartt33]

"****** organization"? Might wanna check the website again Sunnidiot, as it is a SCHOLAR SITE for religions from all over the world. Even your fucked up theology is in there.

Go ahead........pull something up that proves Sacred Texts Archives is a "****** organization".

Prove your assertion douche.

It is clear that you have no idea how I feel about gays. However, I will take the information, and read it over with an open mind. I canot just read it and make a shallow rsponse.

As to a "scholar site of people from religions of all kinds, whenever you get a group like that together, you usually cannot tust any of them to do any less than compromise. Their inomation is not trustworthy in most cases.

if you had actually bothered to go to the site, you would see that it is organized by religion, and there is no mixing of religions on the site.

I did not go to the site because I guess I missed the link to it.

Let me get this straight. There are various religions represented (any religion or all) but they are not necessarily there as a common group. Is that correct?

If that is the case, have you read other views of this topic there, or just the one you agree with? If all religions are represented, then you can find the apposing view too, right? Otherwise, I am correct. Who is biased?

 

[Smartt33]

Hey Smartt........might wanna take your gay bias somewhere else.

By the way, might wanna give this a read.......

David and Jonathan

There is an extensive and very sympathetic description of a same-sex relationship in the Bible, the story of David and Jonathan, e.g.: 1 Samuel 18:1-5, 1 Samuel 19:1-7, 1 Samuel 20:30-42, 2 Samuel 1:25-6. While their bond is described as non-sexual, it is difficult to characterize it as purely one of friendship.

Jonathan was the son of Saul, David's nemesis. Their souls are described as 'knit together'. David and Jonathan 'made a covenant, because he loved him as his own soul.' The word convenant is significant, because in the Tanach this word always implies a formal legal agreement. To mark this convenant, Jonathan literally gives David the clothes off of his back, as well as other gifts such as weapons.

Later in the narrative, Jonathan successfully intercedes with Saul to spare David's life. At their last meeing, 1 Samuel 20:41, they are described as kissing one another and weeping together. David's grief at Jonathan's death is profound and moving. In Davids lament for Jonathan he describes their friendship as '(sur)passing the love of women'. This elegy, 2 Samuel 1:18-27. known as 'the Bow,' is one of the most beloved passages in the Hebrew Bible.

This narrative far outweighs the two trivial aspersions against same-sex love in Leviticus. The bigots who use the Bible to assault gays are apparently blind to it.

LGBT Texts

1) A "same sex relationship" can be anything from a friendship to an all male military organization. Nothing to do with sex or sexual orientation.

2) " While their bond is described as non-sexual" Does that not say something to you about it. Why do you want to make it sexual, or even about sexual orientation?

3) A marriage can be a covenant, but a covenant does not have to be a marriage. Think about it.

4) I am sorry you have not had such a wonderful friendship with someone of the same sex, in your life. Friendship can be an awesome thing, and not even consider sexual orientation or behavior. (Even if it is a different sex relationship)

5) Their covenant was a covenant of loyalty to each other, not of marriage. Anyone who says it is a marriage covenant is just wrong.

"To mark this convenant, Jonathan literally gives David the clothes off of his back, as well as other gifts such as weapons. " there are many actions that people may attach to their covenants. We use to have "blood brother" bonds, but sex was not involved.

" The word convenant is significant, because in the Tanach this word always implies a formal legal agreement. " A marriage agreement is a legal agreement, but there can be a legal agreement that is not a marriage agreement. Think about it.

6) "In Davids lament for Jonathan he describes their friendship as '(sur)passing the love of women'." That statement also doesn't mean sexual love. It is personal love. I love Jesus in the same way Jonathan and David loved each other. That love is greater than the great love of a man for a woman.

7) It is an awesome story of a friendship, nothing sexual involved. No scholar can dissagree with me on that, and show proof that they are right. They would be wrong.

 

[Ralph]

The Old Law is moot to any Christian, except as a historical reference to use as a school master that leads us to Jesus and confirms that Jesus indeed was the Christ ( Gal. 3:24-25, Rom 15:4, 1 Cor. 10:1-2). as it was nailed to the cross of our savior Lord Jesus Christ (Col. 2:14). The Old Law was never written nor intended for any Gentile to live under....it was given directly to the people whom God chose to husband ( personally cultivate), Biblical Israel -- Deut 5:3, such was given as an example of Gods righteous power and authority and to prepare the gentile nations of the world for the coming of a new covenant that encompassed the entire world -- Deut. 4:7-8, Jer. 31:31-34. God details the fact of the Old Law being only temporary.

The New Covenant would be written upon the hearts of the true servants of God (Jer. 31:33). Just as the Christ proclaimed, the kingdom of God is not physical but spiritual and exists WITHIN all Christians -- Luke 17:20-21

Even though we now live under the perfect law of liberty, the New Testament Covenant of our Lord Jesus Christ.....the basic Laws and principles that were not specific to the nation of Israel were carried forth into the New Testament from the Old. All the 10 commandments save one, sabbath worship (Col. 2:14-16) were carried over in the Teachings and Doctrine of Christianity. The Old Law was done away with in order to include the Gentile nations of the world, as the Christ directly said that ALL NATIONS should be instructed in the TRUTH OF THE GOSPEL (Matthew 28:18-19), and in that Truth....the sin of homosexuality is very clearly defined, just as are all other sins.

Anyone that continues to serve sin....are the servants of that sin, and not to the righteousness of GOD, any sin -- Romans 6:16

 

[ABikerSailor]

It is clear that you have no idea how I feel about gays. However, I will take the information, and read it over with an open mind. I canot just read it and make a shallow rsponse.

As to a "scholar site of people from religions of all kinds, whenever you get a group like that together, you usually cannot tust any of them to do any less than compromise. Their inomation is not trustworthy in most cases.

if you had actually bothered to go to the site, you would see that it is organized by religion, and there is no mixing of religions on the site.

I did not go to the site because I guess I missed the link to it.

Let me get this straight. There are various religions represented (any religion or all) but they are not necessarily there as a common group. Is that correct?

If that is the case, have you read other views of this topic there, or just the one you agree with? If all religions are represented, then you can find the apposing view too, right? Otherwise, I am correct. Who is biased?

I'll make this simple........we were talking about how Christians view homosexuality, so I went to the Christian section to see what it had to say.

If you want, you can even check out what the Book of Shadows or the Necronomicron has to say, but I'm not really interested in demon theology.

Go to the site and research it yourself.

 

[Smartt33]

if you had actually bothered to go to the site, you would see that it is organized by religion, and there is no mixing of religions on the site.

I did not go to the site because I guess I missed the link to it.

Let me get this straight. There are various religions represented (any religion or all) but they are not necessarily there as a common group. Is that correct?

If that is the case, have you read other views of this topic there, or just the one you agree with? If all religions are represented, then you can find the apposing view too, right? Otherwise, I am correct. Who is biased?

I'll make this simple........we were talking about how Christians view homosexuality, so I went to the Christian section to see what it had to say.

If you want, you can even check out what the Book of Shadows or the Necronomicron has to say, but I'm not really interested in demon theology.

Go to the site and research it yourself.

OK, you went to the "Christian section" of the site. Cool. Now, did you visit and notice that there were apposing views on the matter? Is it possible for you to even consider the possibilities that the sites that agree with you are wrong, which they are?

I still don't know what site it is. Wanna present it again here?

 

[ABikerSailor]

I did not go to the site because I guess I missed the link to it.

Let me get this straight. There are various religions represented (any religion or all) but they are not necessarily there as a common group. Is that correct?

If that is the case, have you read other views of this topic there, or just the one you agree with? If all religions are represented, then you can find the apposing view too, right? Otherwise, I am correct. Who is biased?

I'll make this simple........we were talking about how Christians view homosexuality, so I went to the Christian section to see what it had to say.

If you want, you can even check out what the Book of Shadows or the Necronomicron has to say, but I'm not really interested in demon theology.

Go to the site and research it yourself.

OK, you went to the "Christian section" of the site. Cool. Now, did you visit and notice that there were apposing views on the matter? Is it possible for you to even consider the possibilities that the sites that agree with you are wrong, which they are?

I still don't know what site it is. Wanna present it again here?

Okay stupid, go to post 254 of this thread, and click on the underlined part that says "LGBT Texts".

That's a link for you computer illiterate types, generally links are found with lines under them. Click on them and it will take you to a whole brand new web page! Isn't that neat?

Then, when there, click on the home page button and you will see what the site is about.

For someone who claims to be Smartt, you've got the IQ of a lobotomized retard.

 

[rdean]

Many Christians have no idea where gays come from. Isn't that a hoot?

 

[Smartt33]

I'll make this simple........we were talking about how Christians view homosexuality, so I went to the Christian section to see what it had to say.

If you want, you can even check out what the Book of Shadows or the Necronomicron has to say, but I'm not really interested in demon theology.

Go to the site and research it yourself.

OK, you went to the "Christian section" of the site. Cool. Now, did you visit and notice that there were apposing views on the matter? Is it possible for you to even consider the possibilities that the sites that agree with you are wrong, which they are?

I still don't know what site it is. Wanna present it again here?

Okay stupid, go to post 254 of this thread, and click on the underlined part that says "LGBT Texts".

That's a link for you computer illiterate types, generally links are found with lines under them. Click on them and it will take you to a whole brand new web page! Isn't that neat?

Then, when there, click on the home page button and you will see what the site is about.

For someone who claims to be Smartt, you've got the IQ of a lobotomized retard.

You don't have a clue how to carry on a converstaion without acting like a teenager who thinks he knows it all. You actually knows nothing. You are nothing but a name caller, and cannot respond with respect to anyone you don't agree with. I will not continue to discuss this with children. Grow up.

As to the link, I know what a link is. I just missed the one you were talking about. Of course you never miss a thing.

Bottom line, Jonathan and Davis were not gay. The Bible speaks clearly against sin, and clearly shows gay sex to be sin in Romans 1.

That is really all that needs to be said, and opinion doesn't override the Bible. The Bible trumps every opinion.

That is the final answer. Get over it.

 

[JBeukema]

I strongly suspect 'Paul' was a closet homosexual


it explains everything- never having a woman, his misogyny and hatred of gays...

OK, lets travel that highway for a minute. Lets say Paul was gay. Now, I want you to go beyond speculation here, tell me where the Bible says that he married a man. Tell me where the Bible says he had sex with another man.

He hates women throughout all his writings and espouses the virtue of being without a female. He also condemns homosexuality like CB52.

I tell ya, he sounds like a self-hating closet case.

 

[BigBarry]

That christians even have official views on assfucking makes them closet gays for even wanting to be the arbiter of fudge packing.

 

[ABikerSailor]

OK, you went to the "Christian section" of the site. Cool. Now, did you visit and notice that there were apposing views on the matter? Is it possible for you to even consider the possibilities that the sites that agree with you are wrong, which they are?

I still don't know what site it is. Wanna present it again here?

Okay stupid, go to post 254 of this thread, and click on the underlined part that says "LGBT Texts".

That's a link for you computer illiterate types, generally links are found with lines under them. Click on them and it will take you to a whole brand new web page! Isn't that neat?

Then, when there, click on the home page button and you will see what the site is about.

For someone who claims to be Smartt, you've got the IQ of a lobotomized retard.

You don't have a clue how to carry on a converstaion without acting like a teenager who thinks he knows it all. You actually knows nothing. You are nothing but a name caller, and cannot respond with respect to anyone you don't agree with. I will not continue to discuss this with children. Grow up.

As to the link, I know what a link is. I just missed the one you were talking about. Of course you never miss a thing.

Bottom line, Jonathan and Davis were not gay. The Bible speaks clearly against sin, and clearly shows gay sex to be sin in Romans 1.

That is really all that needs to be said, and opinion doesn't override the Bible. The Bible trumps every opinion.

That is the final answer. Get over it.

Not my problem that you can't read a web page and notice where the links are fuckwit.

Get over yourself.

 

[Smartt33]

Okay stupid, go to post 254 of this thread, and click on the underlined part that says "LGBT Texts".

That's a link for you computer illiterate types, generally links are found with lines under them. Click on them and it will take you to a whole brand new web page! Isn't that neat?

Then, when there, click on the home page button and you will see what the site is about.

For someone who claims to be Smartt, you've got the IQ of a lobotomized retard.

You don't have a clue how to carry on a converstaion without acting like a teenager who thinks he knows it all. You actually knows nothing. You are nothing but a name caller, and cannot respond with respect to anyone you don't agree with. I will not continue to discuss this with children. Grow up.

As to the link, I know what a link is. I just missed the one you were talking about. Of course you never miss a thing.

Bottom line, Jonathan and Davis were not gay. The Bible speaks clearly against sin, and clearly shows gay sex to be sin in Romans 1.

That is really all that needs to be said, and opinion doesn't override the Bible. The Bible trumps every opinion.

That is the final answer. Get over it.

Not my problem that you can't read a web page and notice where the links are fuckwit.

Get over yourself.

You are not worth the effort. I thank God that Jesus can forgive you.

Gay sex is sin. Jonathan and David are straight. God hates sin, loves the sinner. Gay marriage is also sin, and if not sin in itself, it promotes sin.

Take this thread to bed with you if you want to, I am finished with it, at least with you.

 

[ABikerSailor]

I strongly suspect 'Paul' was a closet homosexual


it explains everything- never having a woman, his misogyny and hatred of gays...

OK, lets travel that highway for a minute. Lets say Paul was gay. Now, I want you to go beyond speculation here, tell me where the Bible says that he married a man. Tell me where the Bible says he had sex with another man.

He hates women throughout all his writings and espouses the virtue of being without a female. He also condemns homosexuality like CB52.

I tell ya, he sounds like a self-hating closet case.

You know, I've often wondered why Yeshua would have told Paul (who incidentally hated Christians, as he often persecuted them) that he would be the rock upon which He would build His Church.

And..........Paul was the very first pope, which means that he was responsible for handing down the teachings of Yeshua.

Did you know that Paul persecuted James (Yeshua's brother), because he didn't want James building up a sizeable following.

Nope.........I think Paul was probably a mole, placed there to destroy Christianity.

 

[Sunni Man]

OK, lets travel that highway for a minute. Lets say Paul was gay. Now, I want you to go beyond speculation here, tell me where the Bible says that he married a man. Tell me where the Bible says he had sex with another man.

He hates women throughout all his writings and espouses the virtue of being without a female. He also condemns homosexuality like CB52.

I tell ya, he sounds like a self-hating closet case.

You know, I've often wondered why Yeshua would have told Paul (who incidentally hated Christians, as he often persecuted them) that he would be the rock upon which He would build His Church.

And..........Paul was the very first pope, which means that he was responsible for handing down the teachings of Yeshua.

Did you know that Paul persecuted James (Yeshua's brother), because he didn't want James building up a sizeable following.

Nope.........I think Paul was probably a mole, placed there to destroy Christianity.

You are such a nitwit ABikerSailor

You need to put the bong down for awhile

Jesus said it was Peter who was the Rock on whom he would build his church.

And Peter was also the first Pope

 

[ABikerSailor]

I get those 2 mixed up on occasion. Christianity is not my strongest knowledge base.

Apologies.

 

[BigBarry]

Do you think that Peter ever sucked jesus' cock?