The Bible doesn't consistently condemn homosexuality?

[Destroyer2]

Hey, so first a disclaimer: I'm a strong atheist and I'm definitely no expert on the Bible, the word of "God", or Christian religious traditions.

Having said that, I was reading the Skeptic's Annotated Bible and I noticed that the Bible is not actually consistent concerning homosexuality.

And when Jesus was entered into Capernaum, there came unto him a centurion, beseeching him,
And saying, Lord, my servant lieth at home sick of the palsy, grievously tormented.
And Jesus saith unto him, I will come and heal him.
The centurion answered and said, Lord, I am not worthy that thou shouldest come under my roof: but speak the word only, and my servant shall be healed.
For I am a man under authority, having soldiers under me: and I say to this man, Go, and he goeth; and to another, Come, and he cometh; and to my servant, Do this, and he doeth it.
When Jesus heard it, he marvelled, and said to them that followed, Verily I say unto you, I have not found so great faith, no, not in Israel.
And I say unto you, That many shall come from the east and west, and shall sit down with Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob, in the kingdom of heaven.
But the children of the kingdom shall be cast out into outer darkness: there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth.
And Jesus said unto the centurion, Go thy way; and as thou hast believed, so be it done unto thee. And his servant was healed in the selfsame hour.

What was the relationship between the centurion and his slave? Were they a gay couple? If so, Jesus didn't seem to mind.

And they lifted up their voice, and wept again: and Orpah kissed her mother in law; but Ruth clave unto her.

Ruth loved Naomi as Adam loved Eve.

For there are some eunuchs, which were so born from their mother's womb: and there are some eunuchs, which were made eunuchs of men: and there be eunuchs, which have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven's sake. He that is able to receive it, let him receive it.

Is Jesus talking about homosexuals here?

And the angel of the Lord spake unto Philip, saying, Arise, and go toward the south unto the way that goeth down from Jerusalem unto Gaza, which is desert.
And he arose and went: and, behold, a man of Ethiopia, an eunuch of great authority under Candace queen of the Ethiopians, who had the charge of all her treasure, and had come to Jerusalem for to worship,
Was returning, and sitting in his chariot read Esaias the prophet.
Then the Spirit said unto Philip, Go near, and join thyself to this chariot.
And Philip ran thither to him, and heard him read the prophet Esaias, and said, Understandest thou what thou readest?
And he said, How can I, except some man should guide me? And he desired Philip that he would come up and sit with him.
The place of the scripture which he read was this, He was led as a sheep to the slaughter; and like a lamb dumb before his shearer, so opened he not his mouth:
In his humiliation his judgment was taken away: and who shall declare his generation? for his life is taken from the earth.
And the eunuch answered Philip, and said, I pray thee, of whom speaketh the prophet this? of himself, or of some other man?
Then Philip opened his mouth, and began at the same scripture, and preached unto him Jesus.
And as they went on their way, they came unto a certain water: and the eunuch said, See, here is water; what doth hinder me to be baptized?
And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.
And he commanded the chariot to stand still: and they went down both into the water, both Philip and the eunuch; and he baptized him.

Was the eunuch that Philip baptized gay?

I am distressed for thee, my brother Jonathan: very pleasant hast thou been unto me: thy love to me was wonderful, passing the love of women.

David loved Jonathan more than women.

---

So, I'd like a mildly knowledgeable person on Christianity to answer my question here: Why is it that these passages are generally ignored in favor of the passages that say no to homosexuality?

(And yes, I'm legitimately curious here)

 

[koshergrl]

How lame. You expect us to comment on the homosexuality of biblical personages who were not in any way, shape or form, identified as homosexual...and thus did not receive any censure from Christ re: their homosexuality.

Based on your own perverted assumption that they were all engaging in homosexuality.

Lolol...Nothing stupid or hysterical about that.

 

[mudwhistle]

The guy was a Roman, not a Greek.

 

[Sunni Man]

The OP is just another homo troll trying to justify his perversion by twisting Bible verses. ....

 

[koshergrl]

"
Tolerance is not the same thing as acceptance, and acceptance is not the same thing as an endorsement. The message A&E’s decision sends is that the network will not tolerate someone who conscientiously objects to homosexuality on religious grounds. The implication of that message is that 45 percent of Americans should, in principle, be prepared either to sacrifice their jobs or recant their beliefs and endorse a lifestyle to which they are opposed, conscience be damned. To the extent that we embrace that implication, in television and in other American industries, we're also embracing an identity as a nation that forces conformity while calling it tolerance."

The Genuine Conflict Being Ignored in the Duck Dynasty Debate - Larry Alex Taunton - The Atlantic

 

[Moonglow]

What did Jesus say about homosexuality?




.. he doesn't mention it.

 

[koshergrl]

" And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female,
5 And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh?
6 Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.
7 They say unto him, Why did Moses then command to give a writing of divorcement, and to put her away?
8 He saith unto them, Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so."

Matthew 19:1-8 KJV - And it came to pass, that when Jesus - Bible Gateway

 

[koshergrl]

Look, it's like they knew Bode & Destroyer!

"
26 For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature; 27 and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error.
28 And since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God gave them up to a debased mind to do what ought not to be done. 29 They were filled with all manner of unrighteousness, evil, covetousness, malice. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, maliciousness. They are gossips, 30 slanderers, haters of God, insolent, haughty, boastful, inventors of evil, disobedient to parents, 31 foolish, faithless, heartless, ruthless. 32 Though they know God's righteous decree that those who practice such things deserve to die, they not only do them but give approval to those who practice them."

Romans 1:18-32 ESV - God's Wrath on Unrighteousness - For - Bible Gateway

 

[Destroyer2]

How lame. You expect us to comment on the homosexuality of biblical personages who were not in any way, shape or form, identified as homosexual...and thus did not receive any censure from Christ re: their homosexuality.

Based on your own perverted assumption that they were all engaging in homosexuality.

Lolol...Nothing stupid or hysterical about that.

The Ruth-Naomi thing and the David-Jonathan thing were both pretty clear-cut, actually. "Eunuchs from birth" is a little more hazy, as it could just mean someone who has no desire for sex or is physically infertile. The rest I admit are pretty hazy.

Not sure why you negrepped me for asking a question about a religion I'm unfamiliar with, I think that's a quite rude reaction.

 

[Destroyer2]

The guy was a Roman, not a Greek.

Why does it matter?

 

[koshergrl]

You're asking Christians to defend a lie.

That's why you got the neg rep. You're portraying the content of the bible as something other than it really is, and demanding that we do the same.

Forget it.

 

[Destroyer2]

The OP is just another homo troll trying to justify his perversion by twisting Bible verses. ....

Even if I was homosexual, why would I need to use the Bible to justify my position being an atheist?

I'm actually curious about it.

 

[Destroyer2]

You're asking Christians to defend a lie.

That's why you got the neg rep. You're portraying the content of the bible as something other than it really is, and demanding that we do the same.

Forget it.

Actually I asked for someone to explain to me why the opposite portrayal was the dominant one, not for you to agree with my interpretation of the Bible.

But thanks for trying to twist my words, we have some lovely parting gifts for you.

 

[koshergrl]

No, he's saying you're attempting to use the bible to justify homosexuality.

But in order to do so, you have to make up stuff and add it into the actual bible, then pretend it's real. Like you did in your crap OP.

 

[koshergrl]

You're asking Christians to defend a lie.

That's why you got the neg rep. You're portraying the content of the bible as something other than it really is, and demanding that we do the same.

Forget it.

Actually I asked for someone to explain to me why the opposite portrayal was the dominant one, not for you to agree with my interpretation of the Bible.

But thanks for trying to twist my words, we have some lovely parting gifts for you.

You made up garbage and attributed it to the bible, then asked believers to defend the garbage.

 

[Destroyer2]

"
Tolerance is not the same thing as acceptance, and acceptance is not the same thing as an endorsement. The message A&E’s decision sends is that the network will not tolerate someone who conscientiously objects to homosexuality on religious grounds. The implication of that message is that 45 percent of Americans should, in principle, be prepared either to sacrifice their jobs or recant their beliefs and endorse a lifestyle to which they are opposed, conscience be damned. To the extent that we embrace that implication, in television and in other American industries, we're also embracing an identity as a nation that forces conformity while calling it tolerance."

The Genuine Conflict Being Ignored in the Duck Dynasty Debate - Larry Alex Taunton - The Atlantic

I give zero shits about Duck Dynasty.

 

[Sunni Man]

The OP is just another homo troll trying to justify his perversion by twisting Bible verses. ....

Even if I was homosexual, why would I need to use the Bible to justify my position being an atheist?

I'm actually curious about it.

I also neg repp'ed you.

Enjoy.......

 

[Destroyer2]

No, he's saying you're attempting to use the bible to justify homosexuality.

But in order to do so, you have to make up stuff and add it into the actual bible, then pretend it's real. Like you did in your crap OP.

Wait wait wait wait wait.

Did you just say I made up the passages I quoted?



You might as well give up now, then, you ain't got no ammo.

 

[Moonglow]

How lame. You expect us to comment on the homosexuality of biblical personages who were not in any way, shape or form, identified as homosexual...and thus did not receive any censure from Christ re: their homosexuality.

Based on your own perverted assumption that they were all engaging in homosexuality.

Lolol...Nothing stupid or hysterical about that.

The Ruth-Naomi thing and the David-Jonathan thing were both pretty clear-cut, actually. "Eunuchs from birth" is a little more hazy, as it could just mean someone who has no desire for sex or is physically infertile. The rest I admit are pretty hazy.

Not sure why you negrepped me for asking a question about a religion I'm unfamiliar with, I think that's a quite rude reaction.

The Bible only mentions that men are not to lay with men, or men that dress as women, and women were not to lie with beasts. It did not say a woman can't lay with a woman.
Therefore God likes three ways with chicks.

 

[Destroyer2]

You're asking Christians to defend a lie.

That's why you got the neg rep. You're portraying the content of the bible as something other than it really is, and demanding that we do the same.

Forget it.

Actually I asked for someone to explain to me why the opposite portrayal was the dominant one, not for you to agree with my interpretation of the Bible.

But thanks for trying to twist my words, we have some lovely parting gifts for you.

You made up garbage and attributed it to the bible, then asked believers to defend the garbage.

Thanks for proving you didn't actually read the post, nor what my question actually was.