Gays blaming blacks for gay marriage ban in California

[Bass v 2.0]

The Bible right here clearly and without a doubt condemns male and female homosexual behaviour unequivocally:


Romans 1:26-27: "For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet."

Read it and weep you jackass, pathetic, moronic squid. What now? Is the Apostle Paul now an Ass-Chucking, Sucking Moronic homophobe like Charlie Bass? Is Jesus now one? Is God now one?

 

[Bass v 2.0]

Actually, what that means is a man shall not lie with a man in the same manner as what they lie with women.

By the way, what is a good Mormon doing using a book written specifically for, and by, the High Priests of Israel? Are you Jewish or Mormon?

That means that gay sex acts, which is what homosexuality is wholly based on and solely identified by, is wrong, period, your jackass is refuted. How can gay sex acts be wrong by your logic, but homosexuality not be wrong?

 

[ABikerSailor]

The bible states that men having sex with men is wrong period, no getting around that and that wasn't written in any parable you jackass, just as "Thou shalt not kill" was written in metaphorical form. The Bible does not support gay marrige and gay relationships, there are no examples of such in the Bible, the burden of proof is on *YOU* to prove otherwise, political activism and political correctness does *NOT* subject the Bible to change its message.

Hey Bible Scholar.......the REAL translation of that is "Thou Shalt Not Murder".

And...you do realize that King David had a very close relationship with another male, right?

 

[Southpaw]

The Bible right here clearly and without a doubt condemns male and female homosexual behaviour unequivocally:


Romans 1:26-27: "For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet."

Read it and weep you jackass, pathetic, moronic squid. What now? Is the Apostle Paul now an Ass-Chucking, Sucking Moronic homophobe like Charlie Bass? Is Jesus now one? Is God now one?

I'm disturbed that you are using Scripture to prove the Bible's stance on homosexuality and yet also acting the way you are to this guy.

You are correct in that the Bible is quite clear on homosexuality being wrong but do you think it is possible you are forgetting to apply some other parts of it as well?

Unless you don't really care about following the Bible and are just proving a point about what it says, which is just fine.

 

[ABikerSailor]

The Bible right here clearly and without a doubt condemns male and female homosexual behaviour unequivocally:


Romans 1:26-27: "For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet."

Read it and weep you jackass, pathetic, moronic squid. What now? Is the Apostle Paul now an Ass-Chucking, Sucking Moronic homophobe like Charlie Bass? Is Jesus now one? Is God now one?

Did you know?
* Of 32,000 verses in the Bible, only five directly mention homosexuality.
* The Qur'an only directly mentions homosexuality once.
* Leviticus, the book of the Bible which stipulates death for homosexuality, requires the same punishment for adultery, pre-marital sex, disobedient children and blasphemy.
* The Biblical Jesus does not condemn homosexuality.
* The destruction of the Biblical city of Sodom was due to their mistreatment of strangers.
* The Bible never condemns same sex marriage.
* The Biblical David and Jonathan had a formal same-sex union.
* 'Traditional marriage' in the Bible includes polygamy.
* No known sacred text forbids same sex marriage.
* Very few sacred texts even mention homosexuality.
* Hindu and other far eastern sacred texts do not condemn homosexuality.
* Homosexuality is not unnatural, it is practised by hundreds of species of animals.

This page indexes resources about LGBT (Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender) issues at sacred-texts. This page deals specifically with the subject of LGBT people in sacred texts. For an overview of the positions of various religions on this topic, including historical and current beliefs, refer to this page at the Ontario Consultants for Religious Tolerance site [external site].

References to the scriptures are being used as the backbone of much of the heated discussion about gay people in a way that has not been seen since the Scopes evolution trial. It is thus crucial to examine the actual texts, and the context in which they were written. This page, which has taken months of research to write, provides all available scriptural quotes on this subject, with links into the full texts, also available at this site. Also included are the complete text of several books on the subject, scanned specially to provide background information for this page.

LGBT Texts

 

[Bass v 2.0]

Hey Bible Scholar.......the REAL translation of that is "Thou Shalt Not Murder".

And...you do realize that King David had a very close relationship with another male, right?

King David was *NOT* a homosexual, there is no proof of that. Two male friends who happen to be very close are *NOT* necessarily homosexuals and or engage is gay sex acts. Sodomites like spinning the David and Jonathan story to make it seem the two were an accepted homosexual couple.

 

[Bass v 2.0]

LGBT Texts

Great, the homosexual, bastardised translation of the Bible that tries to tapdance around the fact that the Bible says homosexuality is a sin.

 

[ABikerSailor]

Great, the homosexual, bastardised translation of the Bible that tries to tapdance around the fact that the Bible says homosexuality is a sin.

Actually, no. It's a scholarly site that compiles all the information.

If you actually had any intelligence, you might know that. But......just like everything else you do, you choose not to investigate.

 

[Southpaw]

David and Jonathan did not have a homosexual relationship.

Let's review. The Bible was extremely clear on the fact that:

1. David lusted after a woman on the rooftop
2. David brought her in, ignored the pleas of his servants, and raped her
3. David tried to cover it up and hide the situation
4. David had her husband killed when he wouldn't sleep with his wife

You *really* think that the writers of the book would have a problem stating that he slept with Jonathan if he did? This man raped, lied, murdered, and was such a poor father that his son raped his daughter. The Bible isn't concerned with keeping private things private. It is ridiculous to mistranslate one word concerning brotherhood and assume it was all just a big secret.

 

[Truthspeaker]

While I am not condoning what your friends do in private, I am sure many homosexuals are good people, and lead otherwise good lives. As a mormon, we don't condemn them to hell. We believe that many of them commit the sin ignorantly and were either forced into this lifestyle via abuse, exposed via pornography and taught to indulge in it from friends or molesting family members or just outright choose to do so. In any case, we believe they will not be afflicted with this hormonal imbalance in the next life and it will not be an issue. The attractions they feel to each other will be stripped away in the next life and so it is important to resist them here.
As for the Bible, it was not written only for Jewish priests but to everyone that by the example of the Old testament sacrifices would symbolize the sacrifce Jesus would eventually make. That is the reason we all have the Bible. That is the reason the ancient Jews were given the law of Moses, which was to prepare them to accept Christ when he came.

 

[Southpaw]

Being a homosexual doesn't get you sent to Hell.

Not accepting Christ as your savior gets you sent to Hell. Too many Christians forget that, in my opinion.

Christ said He came to seek and save the lost. He stated that it was not the healthy who needed a doctor, but the sick. It's sad to me that many 'Christians' in America are more concerned over whether or not Bob can marry John versus if Bob or John knows that God loves them and cares about them.

 

[ABikerSailor]

While I am not condoning what your friends do in private, I am sure many homosexuals are good people, and lead otherwise good lives. As a mormon, we don't condemn them to hell. We believe that many of them commit the sin ignorantly and were either forced into this lifestyle via abuse, exposed via pornography and taught to indulge in it from friends or molesting family members or just outright choose to do so. In any case, we believe they will not be afflicted with this hormonal imbalance in the next life and it will not be an issue. The attractions they feel to each other will be stripped away in the next life and so it is important to resist them here.
As for the Bible, it was not written only for Jewish priests but to everyone that by the example of the Old testament sacrifices would symbolize the sacrifce Jesus would eventually make. That is the reason we all have the Bible. That is the reason the ancient Jews were given the law of Moses, which was to prepare them to accept Christ when he came.

Now, interestingly enough, there is a big misconception about that.....because, after all.....do YOU do the same thing that your pastors or bishops or whatever you have as leaders in your faith, or do you do things that they can't because of their position, as well as THEY do things that you can't because of position? Look at it like the Presidency......the President can do all sorts of things that the average citizen can't, but, he's also restricted by his position of office, as well as the fact that EVERYONE looks to them to see what direction the country is going.

Same thing for the book of Leviticus. Unless you're a Jewish High Priest, don't use it.

Matter of fact, in the 613 Mitzvoht, all the rules are for everyone, but, there are certain ones that apply to women that don't apply to males. Same thing with every position in the community. Butchers do different than bankers and artists, which is why there are 613 rules. Not all apply to everyone, but they all apply equally to everyone.

 

[Southpaw]

Same thing for the book of Leviticus. Unless you're a Jewish High Priest, don't use it.

Christ did say that He can not to abolish the Law but to fulfill it.

However, that begs the question of what parts do we fulfill? For example, are we currently bound by the dietary practices of the OT? Well, Peter and Paul seemed to think that Christians should not be. Should we stone gays and adulterers? Well, Christ seemed to hesitate on that one.

Personally, I tend to agree with the civil, ceremonial, and moral breakdown. That basically means that the OT law was divided into those three sections and we, as NT Christians, are only supposed to follow the moral aspect of the laws.

On a law like don't be gay or you will get stoned (Southpaw's translation, very sophisticated), that means we should follow the moral part (homosexuality is wrong) but not worry about implementing the civil punishment (stoning).

Does that make sense?

Google 'civil moral ceremonial law' and I'm sure you will find sites giving more detail.

 

[ABikerSailor]

Christ did say that He can not to abolish the Law but to fulfill it.

However, that begs the question of what parts do we fulfill? For example, are we currently bound by the dietary practices of the OT? Well, Peter and Paul seemed to think that Christians should not be. Should we stone gays and adulterers? Well, Christ seemed to hesitate on that one.

Personally, I tend to agree with the civil, ceremonial, and moral breakdown. That basically means that the OT law was divided into those three sections and we, as NT Christians, are only supposed to follow the moral aspect of the laws.

On a law like don't be gay or you will get stoned (Southpaw's translation, very sophisticated), that means we should follow the moral part (homosexuality is wrong) but not worry about implementing the civil punishment (stoning).

Does that make sense?

Google 'civil moral ceremonial law' and I'm sure you will find sites giving more detail.

Which parts are we supposed to follow? The ones that make sense at the time we notice them. I mean.......do you use a cell phone all the time? How about drive your car everywhere? We should follow them when we see how they make sense.

And......as far as the dietary laws of the OT? Well.......think about this......in the Bible, it said that you shouldn't eat pork. Why? Well, there was trichinosis, which in turn, could lead to disease and death. Now, since we didn't have the means to sterilize pork to make it safe to eat, God said "Don't", but now we do, so I'm pretty sure that the rules for that one would be suspended.

Same thing with sodomy incidentally. We didn't have condoms back then either.

But.......there are several places where Rabbis have shown me where there are always allowances made for technological advancement, even in the Temple.

Watch the Universal Torah Network on the web sometime. Especially the ones about the Temple Institute and the re-building of the Temple.

 

[Southpaw]

Same thing with sodomy incidentally. We didn't have condoms back then either.

Hmm, interesting point.

If you will remember, Peter was asked to eat unclean things in a dream and Paul was pretty clear that pork was on the menu, so to speak.

I think the whole 'no gay sex' thing had less to do with diseases (though sin always has consequences) than it did with breaking God's design for human interaction and family structure. EDIT: That's why it would be considered a moral law and thus still applicable, even though they certainly should not be stoned.

 

[WhiteLion]

Being a homosexual doesn't get you sent to Hell.

Not accepting Christ as your savior gets you sent to Hell. Too many Christians forget that, in my opinion.

Christ said He came to seek and save the lost. He stated that it was not the healthy who needed a doctor, but the sick. It's sad to me that many 'Christians' in America are more concerned over whether or not Bob can marry John versus if Bob or John knows that God loves them and cares about them.

True there, GOD loves the person committing the act of homosexuality, but hates the act. See in order to really love, you have to really hate sin, there just ant no way around it.

 

[glockmail]

Being a homosexual doesn't get you sent to Hell.

Not accepting Christ as your savior gets you sent to Hell. Too many Christians forget that, in my opinion.

Christ said He came to seek and save the lost. He stated that it was not the healthy who needed a doctor, but the sick. It's sad to me that many 'Christians' in America are more concerned over whether or not Bob can marry John versus if Bob or John knows that God loves them and cares about them.

Jesus also said repent for your sins.

 

[glockmail]

I want to know sailor, why do you have a horse in this race? Are you gay or do you sympathize with gays?

He's got to be one or the other.

 

[Agnapostate]

Hmm, interesting point.

If you will remember, Peter was asked to eat unclean things in a dream and Paul was pretty clear that pork was on the menu, so to speak.

I think the whole 'no gay sex' thing had less to do with diseases (though sin always has consequences) than it did with breaking God's design for human interaction and family structure. EDIT: That's why it would be considered a moral law and thus still applicable, even though they certainly should not be stoned.

Apparently, short passages in the book of Acts are acceptable to you when they work to your advantage, but not when they advocate a political philosophy that you oppose.

 

[Agnapostate]

David and Jonathan did not have a homosexual relationship.

Let's review. The Bible was extremely clear on the fact that:

1. David lusted after a woman on the rooftop
2. David brought her in, ignored the pleas of his servants, and raped her
3. David tried to cover it up and hide the situation
4. David had her husband killed when he wouldn't sleep with his wife

You *really* think that the writers of the book would have a problem stating that he slept with Jonathan if he did? This man raped, lied, murdered, and was such a poor father that his son raped his daughter. The Bible isn't concerned with keeping private things private. It is ridiculous to mistranslate one word concerning brotherhood and assume it was all just a big secret.

Was the fate of David and Bathsheba's first child evidence of God's high regard for innocent life?