The Bible Is Against Homosexuality

[metta]

Gesh...the person that runs this facebook page is just so intensely hating us. I wonder why it drives this person(people) so much...


http://www.facebook.com/pages/The-Bible-Is-Against-Homosexuality/131318380243657?v=wall


Here is the facebook page against them...
http://www.facebook.com/pages/Prote...t-homosexuality/141983725819767?ref=ts&v=wall




Here is good information which I have posted before: The Bible & Homosexuality
http://www.otkenyer.hu/truluck/the_bible_and_homosexuality.html

 

[Bored]

I'm going to see if I can Rick Roll him.


I'm still getting use to facebook. When I find the send message button I will get this game started.

 

[Bored]

I can't find it . Unless someone tells me how, I'm just going to ignore it.

 

[SLOPPYSECONDS]

Cultures use internet dump their misery or twat piss wanna figure PLANET invented

if lot folk lot countrys dump ons internet what OBVIOUS faeva real world
dat a double dose shrink fa ums

right back ta fairy dippins ans watch da United Nations figure out da bill fa shrinks fa theirs countrys hohoho whata hoot



any toonpips finds this post of worlds twat cultures ans discover they wear shoes theys not alive so no eat ya

oh yeah cue anime

 

[Bored]

I reported the page.

 

[Frankstah]

You see the bible....I once cut out a deep hole through the pages and hid a Dildo in there...that's what I think about it.

 

[TheFireGod]

Who cares what some lowlife thinks of us.

 

[grady26]

I've said this before, but maybe it bears repeating.

In the Four Gospels, which are the direct teachings of Jesus Christ, the is no mention of homosexuality or any type of condemnation.

Forget the Old Testament where you have a somewhat revenge-filled god. And skip the teachings of Paul in the New Testament. When he was Saul, before his "conversion," he was known for persecuting Christains.

I am sticking to the Four Gospels.

 

[bluedragon4]

They sure don't address this or take this to heart!

 

[hungrybrownbear]

I've said this before, but maybe it bears repeating.

In the Four Gospels, which are the direct teachings of Jesus Christ, the is no mention of homosexuality or any type of condemnation.

Forget the Old Testament where you have a somewhat revenge-filled god. And skip the teachings of Paul in the New Testament. When he was Saul, before his "conversion," he was known for persecuting Christains.

I am sticking to the Four Gospels.

If you think the Old Testament portrayed a revenge filled God you obviously don't have a very substantive grasp about what the Bible is about. The God of both testaments is the exact same static God, if you don't realize that important distinction, then the whole clockwork of the Bible falls apart --which would make sticking to any part of it useless.


----------------------------------------------------------------

Here is good information which I have posted before: The Bible & Homosexuality
http://www.otkenyer.hu/truluck/the_bible_and_homosexuality.html

Stop picking and choosing, you can go back to original languages if you want, there is a clear anti-homosexual sentiment in the Bible. Of course the the Bible is going to be void of anachronisms --that shouldn't be the basis for any rationale in support of any claim. Take the Bible as it is, reject, or accept it, but don't try to imbue postmodern dribble and analysis, and paint it as something it's not.

 

[alley]

They sure don't address this or take this to heart! View attachment 484455

 

[metta]

Who cares what some lowlife thinks of us.

Because there are lives at stake. Human beings are being harmed because of this.

 

[ShihTzuTylenol]

Fuck That SHIT! Maybe they need to edit the god damn thing again like they have throughout history to change any shit they feel like changing. I don't want to here about it. The fucktards that believe that shit are already in hell, as far as I'm concerned.

That's all I got.

 

[construct]

Of course the the Bible is going to be void of anachronisms --that shouldn't be the basis for any rationale in support of any claim. Take the Bible as it is, reject, or accept it, but don't try to imbue postmodern dribble and analysis, and paint it as something it's not.

There was no such thing as sexuality in biblical times. Sexuality did not exist. Thus the Bible could not conceivably condemn homosexuality. It is anachronistic to read modern homosexuality into pre-modern texts. As you say, the Bible is void of anachronisms. Thus it doesn't condemn homosexuality.

That is my postmodern, social constructionist take on the subject.

 

[Nomenclature]

Stupidest argument i've ever heard, since each and every person who says "The bible is against homosexuality" has themselves committed at least like. . .five sins the book says are punishable by death:

Premarital sex, adultery, sodomy, eating pork and shellfish, being around a woman on her period, wearing polyester, planting two different crops in the same field; allowing two different species of animals to graze together, arguing with your parents, etc etc.

 

[hungrybrownbear]

There was no such thing as sexuality in biblical times. Sexuality did not exist. Thus the Bible could not conceivably condemn homosexuality. It is anachronistic to read modern homosexuality into pre-modern texts. As you say, the Bible is void of anachronisms. Thus it doesn't condemn homosexuality.

That is my postmodern, social constructionist take on the subject.

What are you talking about, sexual relationships between men have been extensively documented throughout the biblical time frame.

 

[construct]

What are you talking about, sexual relationships between men have been extensively documented throughout the biblical time frame.

Sexuality is an invention of the eighteenth century. Homosexuality is an invention of the nineteenth century. Homosexuality is a pathology. I reject it in favor of being gay.

 

[hungrybrownbear]

Sexuality is an invention of the eighteenth century. Homosexuality is an invention of the nineteenth century. Homosexuality is a pathology. I reject it in favor of being gay.

Yes the term you're using was invented in the 18th century when the shift towards the normalization of same sex relationships (and sex in general) was merited a name.


In Biblical terms it's either sin, or not sin. Lying with another man = sin = Moral law.

There's no way around it.

 

[construct]

Yes the term you're using was invented in the 18th century when the shift towards the normalization of same sex relationships was merited a name.

Same-sex relationships weren't even in mind when sexuality was invented. And homosexuality was not invented to facilitate normalization. It was invented as part of the struggle between the legal establishment and the developing mental health professionals over the custody of bodies. It was a shift from criminalization to pathologization.

What were the constructs in play in the biblical period? Act, discourse, and valorization came together to produce what meaning? Whatever was going on in the biblical period, it wasn't homosexuality. That wasn't the way it was constructed. That wasn't what was condemned.

Texts as such are time-bound. They are embedded in historical discursive fields. Canonical texts are given a series of new meanings with each shift in those discursive fields. They acquire layers of sedimentation laid over them by those who find the texts important to them. Each redeployment of the text is a new statement in the series--the strata of interpretation and practice.

Perhaps it would be more accurate to say that today the Bible is used to condemn homosexuality. I don't see how anyone could reasonably disagree with that.

 

[FanofFiction]

Sexuality isn't something that can be invented. It's human nature and has existed as long as mankind. Homosexuality as a set human nature predates the bible, only the terminology was invented later.

And the Bible in it's original written languages was not nearly so harsh towards men who preferred men. Jesus even healed a man's lover- later rewritten as his 'servant'.