Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 65

Thread: The Bible Does Not Prohibit ****sexuality

  1. #1
    Libby
    Guest

    Default The Bible Does Not Prohibit ****sexuality

    Interesting interview with the Bishop Gene Robinson, first openly gay Bishop of the Episcopal Church.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BFhyK...feature=colike

    (Not sure why the Islamic sub***les)

    Edit: Someone told me, it might be because someone has a "hit" out on him. He did say that he has received numerous death threats.. Very sad.
    Last edited by Libby; 02-07-2012 at 02:12 AM.

  2. #2
    Libby
    Guest

    Default

    Another interview with Gene Robinson. Seems like a really great guy. All that he has been through and still going through, including death threats....sad!

    http://youtu.be/m2u1zNUdxgk

  3. #3
    Libby
    Guest

    Default

    Gene Robinson: What's Christian about Christian leadership?

    http://youtu.be/_qxspuOCpnw

    God Approves of ****sexuality

    http://youtu.be/C4iYu2Nyh8U

  4. #4
    Libby
    Guest

    Default

    Bishop Gene Robinson - "It Gets Better"

    http://youtu.be/mPZ5eUrNF24

  5. #5
    W Hytchins
    Guest

    Default Nonsense

    Its interesting that so far you are the only contributor to this particular post, so let me correct you.

    The Bible does indeed condemn ****sexuality, try reading the first two chapters of the book of Romans.

    You can stick your head in the sand if you like, you can ignore what God has to say, but ****sexuality is a perversion.

    Christian Regards

    W H

  6. #6
    alanmolstad
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Libby View Post
    Interesting interview with the Bishop Gene Robinson, first openly gay Bishop of the Episcopal Church.

    .....
    I grew up in this church, but at some point in the very early 70s my parents started to notice that a movement that was very dark and evil was getting into the leadership of the church...

    In the end my parents left the church to seek a place to worship elsewhere....

    Over the years it has been sad to watch the church slide downhill to where it is now....its a joke..
    God has left the church......

  7. #7
    asdf
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Libby View Post
    Interesting interview with the Bishop Gene Robinson, first openly gay Bishop of the Episcopal Church.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BFhyK...feature=colike
    Bishop Robinson is also prominently featured in the documentary film For the Bible Tells Me So. If you haven't seen it, I highly recommend it — not really for the theological arguments (they might be helpful to some, but personally, I found them rather shallow), but primarily to put a human face on something that is so often treated as a "controversial issue".

    That is to say, I have found that the vast majority of anti-gay Christians do not themselves know (or know they know) any gay people. So they remain ignørant of the harm their (abstract, to them) "theology" does to real, live people.
    Last edited by asdf; 09-07-2012 at 07:52 AM. Reason: fix censorbot

  8. #8
    alanmolstad
    Guest

    Default

    I dont know any child molesters, but Im still very much against such people and always will be.....

    i dont know many murders, but Im still very much against such people.

    My reasons for being this way are because such people stand against the spirit of the bible's teachings.

  9. #9
    asdf
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by alanmolstad View Post
    I dont know any child molesters, but Im still very much against such people and always will be.....

    i dont know many murders, but Im still very much against such people.

    My reasons for being this way are because such people stand against the spirit of the bible's teachings.
    Perhaps if you knew some gay people, you would understand how harmful, hurtful, and derogatory it is to compare their desire to love and be loved with child molestation and murder.

  10. #10
    alanmolstad
    Guest

    Default

    I believe it is the bible that condemns the gays...
    as a christian i cant go against what the bible teaches correct?

    So as the bible teaches that the gays dont enter into the kingdom should i ignore that?

  11. #11
    asdf
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by alanmolstad View Post
    I believe it is the bible that condemns the gays...
    as a christian i cant go against what the bible teaches correct?
    Of course you can. And do, all the time. Unless you, say, enforce short hair on men, long hair & head coverings on women, and endorse slavery. (To say nothing of the Old Testament laws about food, sabbath, shaving, agriculture, hygiene, etc.)

    So as the bible teaches that the gays dont enter into the kingdom should i ignore that?
    The bible doesn't "say" anything of the sort. One interpretation of the bible, based on one translation of a couple Greek words into English, suggests that.

  12. #12
    alanmolstad
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by asdf View Post
    Of course you can. And do, all the time. Unless you, say, enforce short hair on men, long hair & head coverings on women, and endorse slavery. (To say nothing of the Old Testament laws about food, sabbath, shaving, agriculture, hygiene, etc.)


    t.
    I believe men should have hair that reflects the best "male-ness" that is consistent with the bible's command.

    I believe the women's 'head covering" talked about in the New test is actually just talking about "long hair" as as such I believe that the hair length of a girl should also reflect a message consistent with the Bible's command.

    The Bible does not endorse slavery, and in fact it commands that if a slave can find his freedom he should take it....
    I agree with this command of the Bible.


    as for the Old test?...we are under the New Covenant, as as such we have to follow the laws laid out for us to follow that appear in the Bible for New test believers.

    As such we see clearly that being "gay" itself is called a perversion and the people who live in that type of sinful life do not enter into the kingdom....

  13. #13
    asdf
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by alanmolstad View Post
    I believe men should have hair that reflects the best "male-ness" that is consistent with the bible's command.

    I believe the women's 'head covering" talked about in the New test is actually just talking about "long hair" as as such I believe that the hair length of a girl should also reflect a message consistent with the Bible's command.
    Indeed—those are interpretations and contextualizations you've made to make sense of biblical proscriptions that, if taken at face value, do not correspond with reality and morality as you know it.

    The Bible does not endorse slavery, and in fact it commands that if a slave can find his freedom he should take it....
    I agree with this command of the Bible.
    Not once does any author in the biblical texts condemn the slave trade or say that owning another person is an immoral thing that a Christian ought not do. And in several places slavery is given explicit or tacit support as a direct command from God. Am I mistaken?

    as for the Old test?...we are under the New Covenant, as as such we have to follow the laws laid out for us to follow that appear in the Bible for New test believers.
    Indeed, most Christians do consider the Mosaic laws to have been abrogated by Christ, except when it's convenient for their culture wars.

    As such we see clearly that being "gay" itself is called a perversion and the people who live in that type of sinful life do not enter into the kingdom....
    "Being 'gay' itself" — [citation needed]
    "is called a perversion" — [citation needed]

    I'm sorry, but we do not "see clearly" any such thing. You're reading quite a bit of your modern biases into your selective reading and selective interpretation of a few select scriptures.

    And, once again, if you bothered to get to know some gay people, it might help illuminate those biases to help you see them more clearly. Reality tends to have that effect on our treasured abstract interpretations—such as when the Christian doctrine of fixed-earth geocentrism was overthrown by the observable reality of heliocentrism.

    "But it does move."

  14. #14
    alanmolstad
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by asdf View Post
    Indeed—those are interpretations and contextualizations you've made to make sense of biblical proscriptions that, if taken at face value, do not correspond with reality and morality as you know it.
    My previous answer was addressed to the idea that because I follow the New test Biblical condemnation of the Gays that I also must follow the teachings on hair length....

    as I point out in my post, I do.

    Thus my teachings in support of the Bible on the subject of the Gays is totally consistent with all the other New Test Bible teachings....


    Morality as I know it must be based on the text of the Bible alone, or it is of no value to us...



    in other words:
    The Bible says it-
    I believe it -
    That settles it!

  15. #15
    alanmolstad
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by asdf View Post


    Not once does any author in the biblical texts condemn the slave trade ....

    Actually the whole letter by Paul addressed to Philemon is a clear attempt by Paul to get a slave set free and returned to him.....

    Paul puts the screws to Philemon in the letter, and the context is clearly that Paul wants the slave set free.....




    The other thing I think I should point out is that we dare not ***ume that just because something is not addressed in the bible with the very same wording we are seeking that this somehow means the Bible has nothing to teach on a topic.
    An example would be getting drunk and driving a car the wrong way on the road.
    Does any Bible author clearly come out and condemn driving drunk on the wrong side of the road?.....no.

    But we cant then ***ume that the Bible must agree with the practice of driving a car drunk just because we cant find it as clearly talked about as some person requests.

    The context of the New Test is clearly that owning a slave is harmful and that if a slave gets a chance to be free he should take it, and that to be a good Christian a slave owner should allow his slaves to go free.

    This is the teachings of the Bible, and it is true....
    Last edited by alanmolstad; 09-09-2012 at 06:58 AM.

  16. #16
    alanmolstad
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by asdf View Post



    Indeed, most Christians do consider the Mosaic laws to have been abrogated by Christ
    What we believe is this >
    "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."


    All of the Law of the Jews was totally fulfilled in the life and death of Christ.
    When we become Christians, we are buried with Christ in the water of our Baptism.

    Thus to the law we are then , (and for all time after) dead ....

    We are dead in the eyes of the law.
    And as we all know, the Law has no power over the dead...the law is fulfilled and we are no longer under it's power.

    We rise up out of the waters of the new Covenant, and as such we now fall under the control and power of the New test commandments.

    The important teachings for the church are found now in the New Test and are therefore part of our New Covenant...

    The commandment that Gays do not enter into the Lord's Kingdom are found in the New test and are very much a part of the New Covenant that we now live under in Christ.

  17. #17
    alanmolstad
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by asdf View Post
    . Reality tends to have that effect on our treasured abstract interpretations—.....
    The Bible is not written for private interpretation!

  18. #18
    alanmolstad
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by asdf View Post
    "is called a perversion" — [citation needed]
    http://bible.cc/romans/1-27.htm

  19. #19
    alanmolstad
    Guest

    Default

    Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor ****sexuals,or thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, will inherit the kingdom of God.

    But if any these repent , they will be forgiven.







    Let me know if you have any more questions on this topic.
    Last edited by alanmolstad; 09-09-2012 at 07:45 AM.

  20. #20
    ActRaiser
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by alanmolstad View Post
    Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor ****sexuals,or thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, will inherit the kingdom of God.

    But if any these repent , they will be forgiven.







    Let me know if you have any more questions on this topic.
    Repent. . .
    I know some people who want to "repent" of this and don't lead a ****sexual lifestyle, but still sin in their heart with the same lusts.

    I"m not sure what question I"m asking but it would be nice if you could fish for an answer to the unspoken.

  21. #21
    asdf
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by alanmolstad View Post
    My previous answer was addressed to the idea that because I follow the New test Biblical condemnation of the Gays that I also must follow the teachings on hair length....

    as I point out in my post, I do.
    For a certain value of "follow". Others, who take the text more "literally", would likely describe your interpretation as playing-fast-and-loose-with-the-plain-meaning-of-scripture.

    Morality as I know it must be based on the text of the Bible alone, or it is of no value to us...
    Nonsense. Each of us has opinions and moralities that range far and wide, on topics both familiar to and utterly foreign to the writers of scripture.

    The Bible is not a rulebook. Trying to read it as a rulebook doesn’t work. Read it that way and you’re bound to be frustrated, misled and confused. Filtering through the Bible to pluck out the rules produces two results, neither of them helpful. First it gives you a jar full of context-less rules, and second it leaves behind the vast bulk of the Bible — all those stories and songs, prophecy, proverbs, parables and promises filtered off to the side by the quest for rules. (source)

    in other words:
    The Bible says it-
    I believe it -
    That settles it!
    Um, no. A human writer "said" something, 2000+ years ago, in Hebrew, Aramaic or Greek, to an audience consisting of other Hebrew, Aramaic and/or Greek speakers, both author and audience residing in the same culture, a culture very unlike ours, dealing with local and community-defining issues. The writing has been preserved, transcribed, copied, transported across the centuries, dragged thousands of miles from their original context in the ancient Near East, translated into languages that didn't even exist at the time of writing, then interpreted and applied, selectively and imperfectly, by yet more humans, who decide what gets considered a "timeless moral truth" and what gets a p***ing nod as a historical quirk.

    No, sir—you do not "just believe" what the Bible "says".

    Quote Originally Posted by alanmolstad View Post
    Actually the whole letter by Paul addressed to Philemon is a clear attempt by Paul to get a slave set free and returned to him.....

    Paul puts the screws to Philemon in the letter, and the context is clearly that Paul wants the slave set free.....
    Oh! So you should be able to point me to the p***age where Paul instructs, in so many words—"Philemon, you should free Onesimus, and all your slaves! What were you thinking, having slaves in the first place? Don't you know it's immoral for a person to own another human—and you call yourself a follower of Christ! You should be ashamed!"

    Feel free to point that out to me at your earliest convenience.

    The context of the New Test is clearly that owning a slave is harmful and that if a slave gets a chance to be free he should take it, and that to be a good Christian a slave owner should allow his slaves to go free.
    [citations needed]

    This is the teachings of the Bible, and it is true....
    Funny—it sounds distinctly like "the teachings of alanmolstad", and not so much like "the teachings of the Bible" at all.

    Quote Originally Posted by alanmolstad View Post
    All of the Law of the Jews was totally fulfilled in the life and death of Christ.
    When we become Christians, we are buried with Christ in the water of our Baptism.

    Thus to the law we are then , (and for all time after) dead ....

    We are dead in the eyes of the law.
    And as we all know, the Law has no power over the dead...the law is fulfilled and we are no longer under it's power.
    That's nice. I wish someone would tell the zealots who want to plaster the Ten Commandments all over US government buildings, or who tattoo verses from Leviticus on themselves...

    We rise up out of the waters of the new Covenant, and as such we now fall under the control and power of the New test commandments.

    The important teachings for the church are found now in the New Test and are therefore part of our New Covenant...

    The commandment that Gays do not enter into the Lord's Kingdom are found in the New test and are very much a part of the New Covenant that we now live under in Christ.
    You've already amply demonstrated just how selective you are when applying commandments—even "New Covenant" ones. And you've more-than-amply demonstrated that you don't know any gay people—as well as provided a textbook illustration for my knowing gay people is the #1 factor correlating with a person's acceptance of GLBT people as fully human and full members of society.

    Quote Originally Posted by alanmolstad View Post
    The Bible is not written for private interpretation!
    That's nice. But you've already shared your own private interpretations—of slavery p***ages, of hair-regulation p***ages, ...

    Quote Originally Posted by alanmolstad View Post
    Okay, you've got me. Four out of your cited 18 translations translated the Greek πλάνης as "perversion". So you agree with 22% of your own source? Based on the concordance and lexicon uses of πλάνη, why?

    I'm familiar with Romans 1. Paul says that [something —*men leaving women for men] was a punishment from God for the sin of idolatry. Neither idolatry, nor lust, nor "envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity", nor any of the other descriptors Paul uses accurately describe my gay and lesbian friends. Thus, I am forced to conclude either 1) Paul was not referring to my friends when making his diatribe, or 2) Paul was wrong in referring to my friends that way.

    Quote Originally Posted by alanmolstad View Post
    Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor ****sexuals,or thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, will inherit the kingdom of God.
    Considering that the word ****sexuality, and the understanding of sexual orientation as an immutable characteristic of some people did not exist until the late 19th–early 20th century, I find that translation highly suspect.

    Paul writes of malakoi and ****nokoites. What reason do you have to believe that these words refer to a modern gay or lesbian person seeking a committed, monogamous, lifelong covenantal relationship with the person they love?

  22. #22
    asdf
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ActRaiser View Post
    Repent. . .
    I know some people who want to "repent" of this and don't lead a ****sexual lifestyle, but still sin in their heart with the same lusts.

    I"m not sure what question I"m asking but it would be nice if you could fish for an answer to the unspoken.
    ****sexuality is not a "lifestyle". There's nothing to repent of. Gay people are beautiful and good and normal and loved by God just the way they are, despite all the hatred and ignorance and discrimination and shame thrown at them in God's name.

    It's sinful to call profane what God has made clean.

  23. #23
    alanmolstad
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ActRaiser View Post
    Repent. . .
    I know some people who want to "repent" of this and don't lead a ****sexual lifestyle, but still sin in their heart with the same lusts.

    I"m not sure what question I"m asking but it would be nice if you could fish for an answer to the unspoken.
    an interesting question....

    To answer the unspoken question?.........
    very interesting way to wake me up this morning and an interesting challenge.


    It's likely that later today I will have this much better answer thought of , but for now this is my first thoughts on your post.



    There is no temptation common to the Gays that is so powerful that the Christian faith is helpless to meet it.
    So as with any other sin and temptation to sin that all humans face, the answer from the Scriptures is to center your heart on the Lord.

    Fill your thoughts with the Word of the Lord, and it is like a seed planted there that grows and grows and will push out all other thoughts.



    It must start with a moment of self-reflection where you see the truth that a sin is a sin, and the attempt to "call" it something else might fool men, but never fools God!

    To "REPENT" is to "re" - "think"

    To "think about that again"

    In today's wording I would say that it means " To spend some time thinking about that..."


    So the first step is this coming to terms with the sinfulness of your life, and the seeking of being made clean.

    For only in the blood of Christ are people made clean from this and all other sin.



    I do know that the closer you draw to your Lord, the more even the smallest of errors are driven out of your life...
    Last edited by alanmolstad; 09-12-2012 at 04:26 AM.

  24. #24
    alanmolstad
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by asdf View Post


    Oh! So you should be able to point me to the p***age where .....
    I have already talked about this:

    We can not go to the Bible and say, "Where is your clear condemnation of driving a new car the wrong way of the freeway while drunk?"

    and then believe that just because the Bible does not clearly address the particular situation with the same wording we would ask of it, that this must mean that the Bible actually "endorses" driving a car drunk the wrong direction.


    There are billions and billions of different people on this earth right now, and all of them have the ability to ask their own different questions in their own different ways, and then all of them looking to the Text of the Bible for their particular answer addressed clearly to their own questions.

    It would be child-like and ridiculous for us to say that because the Bible is not like a magic 8-ball, with all the correct answers to every question , found simply by flipping open to the first page we turn to, that this means the Bible is completely silent.


    The bible speaks!

    The Bible has it's own message to give us and to teach us to live by.

    It's up to us to read, learn, and live by what we find in the Bible....

    The truth is that the Bible is what it is, and we cant make demands of the wording to fit our questions, rather we have to conform our lives to the text as we have received it.

  25. #25
    alanmolstad
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by asdf View Post
    .......
    Okay, you've got me. ......

    Im simply providing you with the information you requested....

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •