What Does The Bible Say About Being Gay?

[rgs2001uk]

No mention made of whole chapters being deliberately ommitted for political/theological expediency.

No mention of The Dead Sea scrolls, didnt the pope ban them or try to have them covered up and forbade Catholics from reading them?

(Quote from rgs2001uk)

Contemporary examples, please.

The Dead Sea Scrolls are largely Essene, not Christian.

In other words, one is perfectly free to accept the teachings of the

Church, but not to question or reject them.

The Dead Sea Scrolls, however, are not

articles of faith, but documents of historical and archaeological

importance which belong properly not to the Catholic Church, but to

humanity as a whole. It is a sobering and profoundly disturbing

thought that, if Cardinal Ratzinger has his way, everything we ever

learn about the Qumran texts will be subject to the censorship

machinery of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith - will

be, in effect, filtered and edited for us by the Inquisition.

Both quotes above are from this sorce,

http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/scrolls_deadsea/deadsea_scrollsdeception/scrollsdeception07.htm

You sidestepped my query nicely. Contemporary examples of chapters omitted for doctrinal reasons, please.

The Qumran texts are not the property of the Vatican. Some may be; others are in Tel Aviv and the Bodleian. When a new ancient text is discovered, it is common practice to study it before publication.

Not my intention to side step anything, I am an atheist and dont worry myself about theology debates.

The history of the Church of Rome speaks for itself, please dont shoot the messenger.

When a new ancient text is discovered, it is common practice to study it before publication.

I believe I raised the very same, above,

if Cardinal Ratzinger has his way, everything we ever

learn about the Qumran texts will be subject to the censorship

machinery of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith - will

be, in effect, filtered and edited for us by the Inquisition.

As of yet no one has been able to give me a chapter and verse quote anything Jesus Christ ever said about homosexuality.

[isanbirder]

I hope nobody ever will, rgs2001uk, because Christ never said anything about homosexuality. If you'd read the link in my OP, you would have known that.

The whole point of this thread was to spell out clearly what the Bible says about homosexuality. I had no intention of writing anything pro-Catholic or anti-Catholic; in this case it makes no difference. It is all there in the link.... which, as it happens, was probably written by an Anglican.

[rgs2001uk]

I hope nobody ever will, rgs2001uk, because Christ never said anything about homosexuality. If you'd read the link in my OP, you would have known that.

The whole point of this thread was to spell out clearly what the Bible says about homosexuality. I had no intention of writing anything pro-Catholic or anti-Catholic; in this case it makes no difference. It is all there in the link.... which, as it happens, was probably written by an Anglican.

Jeez, IB, give me a break here, have just finished with Church of Rome, dont get me started on Anglicans.

Didnt need to read your link, I already knew the answer, its somehwhat bewildering to me as an atheist, that those who claim to follow the teachings of Christ know so little of his teachings.

I am no great fan of reggae music or of Bob Marley, however one song and the lyrics from it have resonated with me for years, from Redemption Song,

"Emancipate yourselves from mental slavery;

None but ourselves can free our minds."

Edited March 19, 2013 by rgs2001uk

[LeCharivari]

...

The whole point of this thread was to spell out clearly what the Bible says about homosexuality. .... It is all there in the link....

The problem, IB, is that it is all there at the beginning of the link: "interpretations ... differ hugely", so nothing is actually spelt out at all as its all open to interpretation and discussion - but discussion is one thing that the Catholic church is not willing to do. After all, there isn't much point in discussion when you are infallible and can never be wrong.

[isanbirder]

...

The whole point of this thread was to spell out clearly what the Bible says about homosexuality. .... It is all there in the link....

The problem, IB, is that it is all there at the beginning of the link: "interpretations ... differ hugely", so nothing is actually spelt out at all as its all open to interpretation and discussion - but discussion is one thing that the Catholic church is not willing to do. After all, there isn't much point in discussion when you are infallible and can never be wrong.

I wouldn't have expected the infallibility card to be played on this topic!

Yes, the Bible says certain things, and different groups of Christians interpret them differently. This we all know. I was trying to be non-denominational for a change, and clarify what the Bible says, not how people interpret it. The attacks on the Catholic Church higher up this thread are in fact irrelevant.

I would have thought also that the whole question of homosexuality is gradually shifting from the area of morals to the area of science.... on which the Catholic Church is not infallible. Such shifts (one happened notoriously over the earth-centred universe) have happened, but are not really allowed for in any doctrine of infallibility. But this is a whole new topic!

[ignis]

Lots of quotes like

love one another as you love yourself.........

Love others as you love yourself..........

Greet one another with a holy kiss.......

​Also say's......... if all the words Jesus spoke were written down, the World could not contain the books...... so lots of room for interpretation as each Religion thinks fit.

[uptheos]

This is an interesting topic and although I am neither religious, gay or homosexual, I would like to say something directed specifically at the OP's question.. The OP's question is a good one and one that is indeed difficult to answer.

Like so many things in the bible, interpretation and a reasonable knowledge of it needs to be used. For Christian's it often boils down to "did Jesus ever condemn homosexuality?" The old testament law seems to be something insignificant, but to answer a question such as the OP's it cannot be irrelevant as far as Jesus is concerned. It is my understanding, that he did not directly say anything condemning homosexuality, but once again we need to look at interpretation of other things.

E.g. When the Pharisees came to Jesus and asked if it is lawful for a man to put away his wife for every cause he answered them saying, “Have you not read that he who made them at the beginning ‘made them male and female,’ “and said, ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh?’” (Matt. 19:4.) Since Jesus approved of His Father’s plan (i.e., one man, one woman, one flesh,) could we assume that Jesus condemned homosexuality?

Jesus also said, "“For if you believed Moses, you would believe me; for he wrote about me. But if you do not believe his writings, how will you believe my words?” (John 5:46-47.) This is an important statement that is often overlooked, because Jesus was born and lived exclusively under the Law of Moses, another thing many Christians do not realise (or want to realise). Therefore, one can assume that if he endorsed the Law of Moses, and the Law of Moses condemns homosexuality, then could we again assume that Jesus also condemned it?

For me it makes very little difference what the bible says about anything, but if one is truly seeking guidance from the bible or willing to interpret the words of Jesus, then there is still much searching and interpreting to do before an answer will be found.

OK I'm out of here, the subject is too big for me. Good reading though.

[Sheryl]

If you don't mind a straight woman venturing into the forum....my two cents:

Jesus in many instances quite specifically refuted Old testament teachings.

"Turn the other cheek" (NT) for example is quite different from "an eye for an eye" (OT). In fact, it specifically addresses and corrects that earlier teaching.

So to claim that Christians have to accept everything in both Old and New testament not only makes no sense, it is a literal impossibility.

To my understanding some of the OT statements against homosexuality are in the context of statements against any type of sexual activity which could not lead to conception (including masturbation). This makes some sense in the historical context which was an early time in human history when the population was small and still struggling to get a foothold. Obviously the situation today is vastly different.

It seems clear that Jesus never said a word about homosexuality, although it was hardly unknown in his time. That certainly suggests that whatever views he may have had on it, he did not consider this a major spiritual matter. He didn't talk about abortion or measures to prevent pregnancy either and these too were not unknown in his time. In short, the emphasis of his teachings bears little relationship to that being propagated in his name today by many (though certainly not all) supposed evangelical Christians.

He did on many occasions quite specifically rebut various aspects of Judaic law at that time which had OT roots. This was one of the things that got him in trouble with the religious authorities of his time.

Paul on the other hand does seem to have made some statements against homosexuality. He also made quite a few against women and sexual equality, which likewise Jesus did not. Paul's conversion and ministry occurred after the crucifiction and he never met Jesus during his (Jesus's) lifetime. Believers will say that he did meet Jesus in spiritual or resurrected form on the road to Damascus. But nothing in the accounts of this suggest that Jesus at that or any other time transmitted to Paul teachings and strictures different from that which Jesus taught while alive much less imparted special wisdom on matters of sexuality and gender.

I don't think it is "cherry picking" to make an intelligent assessment of the provenance of various religious teachings.

[ragamuffin]

The Bible was put together by humans anyway. Always trying to maintain power. Did you know that the Church has been taking bits in and out because they did not fit their world view? There you go.

[LeCharivari]

I'm with the 'who cares' faction...

As are quite a few, but as nearly 20% of the world are Catholics that makes what the Bible says and those who interpret it important and puts the Pope in a uniquely powerful position - like it or not, he's still far and away the most influential figure in the world despite the numbers drifting away from the church.

Islam may be growing, and have more supporters with over 23% of the population, but it has no single leader like Catholicism and its sects are far more fiercely divided both externally and internally than Christianity in general and the Catholic church in particular.

.

Edited March 20, 2013 by LeCharivari

[LeCharivari]

...

The whole point of this thread was to spell out clearly what the Bible says about homosexuality. .... It is all there in the link....

The problem, IB, is that it is all there at the beginning of the link: "interpretations ... differ hugely", so nothing is actually spelt out at all as its all open to interpretation and discussion - but discussion is one thing that the Catholic church is not willing to do. After all, there isn't much point in discussion when you are infallible and can never be wrong.

I wouldn't have expected the infallibility card to be played on this topic!

Yes, the Bible says certain things, and different groups of Christians interpret them differently. This we all know. I was trying to be non-denominational for a change, and clarify what the Bible says, not how people interpret it. The attacks on the Catholic Church higher up this thread are in fact irrelevant.

I would have thought also that the whole question of homosexuality is gradually shifting from the area of morals to the area of science.... on which the Catholic Church is not infallible. Such shifts (one happened notoriously over the earth-centred universe) have happened, but are not really allowed for in any doctrine of infallibility. But this is a whole new topic!

Homosexuality as an orientation - yes, that will probably eventually be proven by science to be something we are born with rather than something we have any choice over. As far as "morals" and what's morally acceptable, human rights, equality, etc goes, though, that's always going to be a moral judgement and as such its doctrinal and that's where the infallibility of the Catholic church and its interpretation of what the Bible says comes in.

[Almera]

I didn't realize they had homosexuals in their bronze age fantasies and tales.

Thanks.

[BWPattaya]

I don't care if someone is homosexual or heterosexual. It isn't my business and doesn't concern me. Live and let live, as long as no-one is hurt.

As for religion and all the troubles caused by religious zealots over the millennia I would much prefer all religions and so-called holy books were banned.

[LeCharivari]

I didn't realize they had homosexuals in their bronze age fantasies and tales.

Thanks.

Well, now you know - except that both Christianity and Islam originated during the iron age, when both the Koran and the Bible were written, not the bronze age - although homosexuality does indeed feature in some of the proto-writing of the bronze age and features quite prominently in many of the Roman and Greek "tales" written in the iron age

[isanbirder]

Homosexuality as an orientation - yes, that will probably eventually be proven by science to be something we are born with rather than something we have any choice over. As far as "morals" and what's morally acceptable, human rights, equality, etc goes, though, that's always going to be a moral judgement and as such its doctrinal and that's where the infallibility of the Catholic church and its interpretation of what the Bible says comes in. (Quote from LeCharivari)

If the orientation is proved by science, it should lead to a reassessment of the moral position.

Edited March 20, 2013 by isanbirder

[Mooner]

If you don't mind a straight woman venturing into the forum....my two cents:

Jesus in many instances quite specifically refuted Old testament teachings.

"Turn the other cheek" (NT) for example is quite different from "an eye for an eye" (OT). In fact, it specifically addresses and corrects that earlier teaching.

So to claim that Christians have to accept everything in both Old and New testament not only makes no sense, it is a literal impossibility.

To my understanding some of the OT statements against homosexuality are in the context of statements against any type of sexual activity which could not lead to conception (including masturbation). This makes some sense in the historical context which was an early time in human history when the population was small and still struggling to get a foothold. Obviously the situation today is vastly different.

It seems clear that Jesus never said a word about homosexuality, although it was hardly unknown in his time. That certainly suggests that whatever views he may have had on it, he did not consider this a major spiritual matter. He didn't talk about abortion or measures to prevent pregnancy either and these too were not unknown in his time. In short, the emphasis of his teachings bears little relationship to that being propagated in his name today by many (though certainly not all) supposed evangelical Christians.

He did on many occasions quite specifically rebut various aspects of Judaic law at that time which had OT roots. This was one of the things that got him in trouble with the religious authorities of his time.

Paul on the other hand does seem to have made some statements against homosexuality. He also made quite a few against women and sexual equality, which likewise Jesus did not. Paul's conversion and ministry occurred after the crucifiction and he never met Jesus during his (Jesus's) lifetime. Believers will say that he did meet Jesus in spiritual or resurrected form on the road to Damascus. But nothing in the accounts of this suggest that Jesus at that or any other time transmitted to Paul teachings and strictures different from that which Jesus taught while alive much less imparted special wisdom on matters of sexuality and gender.

I don't think it is "cherry picking" to make an intelligent assessment of the provenance of various religious teachings.

I understand your argument but as i stated before this book is supposed to be the word of God. Old testament included! If you are happy to admit this book is not the word of God but the word of man i will reply "Cherry pick all you like". As i mentioned on a previous post, there is good in the Bible.I would say if you use it as a guide book to life it can be extremly helpful.

[Almera]

I didn't realize they had homosexuals in their bronze age fantasies and tales.

Thanks.

Well, now you know - except that both Christianity and Islam originated during the iron age, when both the Koran and the Bible were written, not the bronze age

Oh sorry, I thought all would have known that the iron-age texts were based on the fantasies and tales of the Bronze age, as I wrote.

[Sheryl]

If you don't mind a straight woman venturing into the forum....my two cents:

Jesus in many instances quite specifically refuted Old testament teachings.

"Turn the other cheek" (NT) for example is quite different from "an eye for an eye" (OT). In fact, it specifically addresses and corrects that earlier teaching.

So to claim that Christians have to accept everything in both Old and New testament not only makes no sense, it is a literal impossibility.

To my understanding some of the OT statements against homosexuality are in the context of statements against any type of sexual activity which could not lead to conception (including masturbation). This makes some sense in the historical context which was an early time in human history when the population was small and still struggling to get a foothold. Obviously the situation today is vastly different.

It seems clear that Jesus never said a word about homosexuality, although it was hardly unknown in his time. That certainly suggests that whatever views he may have had on it, he did not consider this a major spiritual matter. He didn't talk about abortion or measures to prevent pregnancy either and these too were not unknown in his time. In short, the emphasis of his teachings bears little relationship to that being propagated in his name today by many (though certainly not all) supposed evangelical Christians.

He did on many occasions quite specifically rebut various aspects of Judaic law at that time which had OT roots. This was one of the things that got him in trouble with the religious authorities of his time.

Paul on the other hand does seem to have made some statements against homosexuality. He also made quite a few against women and sexual equality, which likewise Jesus did not. Paul's conversion and ministry occurred after the crucifiction and he never met Jesus during his (Jesus's) lifetime. Believers will say that he did meet Jesus in spiritual or resurrected form on the road to Damascus. But nothing in the accounts of this suggest that Jesus at that or any other time transmitted to Paul teachings and strictures different from that which Jesus taught while alive much less imparted special wisdom on matters of sexuality and gender.

I don't think it is "cherry picking" to make an intelligent assessment of the provenance of various religious teachings.

I understand your argument but as i stated before this book is supposed to be the word of God. Old testament included! If you are happy to admit this book is not the word of God but the word of man i will reply "Cherry pick all you like". As i mentioned on a previous post, there is good in the Bible.I would say if you use it as a guide book to life it can be extremly helpful.

I personally have never said or thought that the Bible is anything other than words written down by men.

And given that it is internally inconsistent, with in some cases diametrically opposite teachings (especially in Old vs. New testament) I don't see how anyone could claim that all of it is 100% correct. How in that case would they reconcile all the opposing statements?

I don't know many Christians but I would expect that they place the greater weight on the New Testament and that the many instances in which Jesus quite clearly corrected or refuted teachings in the Old testament are what stands as the last word on the matter. After all it is the New Testament teachings that are unique to Christianity.

The teachings directly ascribed in the Bible to Jesus, on the other hand, seem highly consistent as far as I can tell.

[rgs2001uk]

...

The whole point of this thread was to spell out clearly what the Bible says about homosexuality. .... It is all there in the link....

The problem, IB, is that it is all there at the beginning of the link: "interpretations ... differ hugely", so nothing is actually spelt out at all as its all open to interpretation and discussion - but discussion is one thing that the Catholic church is not willing to do. After all, there isn't much point in discussion when you are infallible and can never be wrong.

I wouldn't have expected the infallibility card to be played on this topic!

Yes, the Bible says certain things, and different groups of Christians interpret them differently. This we all know. I was trying to be non-denominational for a change, and clarify what the Bible says, not how people interpret it. The attacks on the Catholic Church higher up this thread are in fact irrelevant.

I would have thought also that the whole question of homosexuality is gradually shifting from the area of morals to the area of science.... on which the Catholic Church is not infallible. Such shifts (one happened notoriously over the earth-centred universe) have happened, but are not really allowed for in any doctrine of infallibility. But this is a whole new topic!

Too be honest here, frankly your attitude is beyone me.

I wouldn't have expected the infallibility card to be played on this topic!

For example, personally I thought that was the domain of The Almighty himself.

The attacks on the Catholic Church higher up this thread are in fact irrelevant.

Please give examples.

Others better qualified and more knowledgeable than me are already asking the same question.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-17973830

The historical genuineness of the Fourth Gospel is at the present time almost universally denied outside the Catholic Church

quoted from here,

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08438a.htm

http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/pro-gay-progressive-irish-priest-refuses-to-sign-vatican-document-affirming/

From Fthr Bernard Lynch

http://www.irishexaminer.com/ireland/gay-priest-fearful-ahead-of-memoirs-publication-190013.html

The attacks on the Catholic Church higher up this thread are in fact irrelevant.

I as an atheist sleep easy in my bed, I dont struggle with trying to square a circle, wrestle with inner demons, suffer from a crisis of conscience or ignore an inconvenient truth.

Good luck to you, as I mentioned before,

"Emancipate yourselves from mental slavery;

None but ourselves can free our minds."

[tombkk]

Lots of quotes lik

Greet one another with a holy kiss.......

​Also say's......... if all the words Jesus spoke were written down, the World could not contain the books...... so lots of room for interpretation as each Religion thinks fit.

Or for communism:

[isanbirder]

Thank you for all the links, rgs2001uk. I can't answer all the points here... just one or two!

The attacks on the Catholic Church were irrelevant because this thread was specifically not about any particular church or denomination. It was intended, for the sake of those who have quoted the Bible, often incorrectly, to show exactly what the Bible said, NOT how people have interpreted it. I think that has to be a starting point for any discussion of what Christianity in general has to say about homosexuality.

I particularly liked this thread, though it is about Catholicism, not about the Bible quotes:-

http://www.bbc.co.uk...europe-17973830

It shows active discussion going on in the Catholic Church... to which there is, as was to be expected, a lot of entrenched opposition. There is going to be more and more of this kind of discussion, and eventually the Church is going to change. I say eventually because I am aware it may take a very long while.

One final word from me anyway.... and this is to the atheists as much as the Christians, Catholic or otherwise. Each one of us has to make up our own mind what to believe and what to reject. I respect this, and I do not abuse you or your beliefs. I can't help feeling (and I am sure this is heretical!) that God would rather have an honest atheist than someone who hasn't bothered to apply his mind to the question one way or another..

[Mooner]

If you don't mind a straight woman venturing into the forum....my two cents:

Jesus in many instances quite specifically refuted Old testament teachings.

"Turn the other cheek" (NT) for example is quite different from "an eye for an eye" (OT). In fact, it specifically addresses and corrects that earlier teaching.

So to claim that Christians have to accept everything in both Old and New testament not only makes no sense, it is a literal impossibility.

To my understanding some of the OT statements against homosexuality are in the context of statements against any type of sexual activity which could not lead to conception (including masturbation). This makes some sense in the historical context which was an early time in human history when the population was small and still struggling to get a foothold. Obviously the situation today is vastly different.

It seems clear that Jesus never said a word about homosexuality, although it was hardly unknown in his time. That certainly suggests that whatever views he may have had on it, he did not consider this a major spiritual matter. He didn't talk about abortion or measures to prevent pregnancy either and these too were not unknown in his time. In short, the emphasis of his teachings bears little relationship to that being propagated in his name today by many (though certainly not all) supposed evangelical Christians.

He did on many occasions quite specifically rebut various aspects of Judaic law at that time which had OT roots. This was one of the things that got him in trouble with the religious authorities of his time.

Paul on the other hand does seem to have made some statements against homosexuality. He also made quite a few against women and sexual equality, which likewise Jesus did not. Paul's conversion and ministry occurred after the crucifiction and he never met Jesus during his (Jesus's) lifetime. Believers will say that he did meet Jesus in spiritual or resurrected form on the road to Damascus. But nothing in the accounts of this suggest that Jesus at that or any other time transmitted to Paul teachings and strictures different from that which Jesus taught while alive much less imparted special wisdom on matters of sexuality and gender.

I don't think it is "cherry picking" to make an intelligent assessment of the provenance of various religious teachings.

I understand your argument but as i stated before this book is supposed to be the word of God. Old testament included! If you are happy to admit this book is not the word of God but the word of man i will reply "Cherry pick all you like". As i mentioned on a previous post, there is good in the Bible.I would say if you use it as a guide book to life it can be extremly helpful.

I personally have never said or thought that the Bible is anything other than words written down by men.

And given that it is internally inconsistent, with in some cases diametrically opposite teachings (especially in Old vs. New testament) I don't see how anyone could claim that all of it is 100% correct. How in that case would they reconcile all the opposing statements?

I don't know many Christians but I would expect that they place the greater weight on the New Testament and that the many instances in which Jesus quite clearly corrected or refuted teachings in the Old testament are what stands as the last word on the matter. After all it is the New Testament teachings that are unique to Christianity.

The teachings directly ascribed in the Bible to Jesus, on the other hand, seem highly consistent as far as I can tell.

Im glad we agree! Im curious to know. What are the teachings in the New Testament that are unique to Christianity? Also as we do not even know that Jesus existed and the writers of the New Testament cant even get right where he was born(Nazereth or Bethlehem?) and the fact that the teachings of Jesus were not written down until at least 30 years after his supposed death begs the question if they are his teachings and if they are were they written down accurately?

Another point on the the teachings of Jesus and the uniqueness of the the New Testament. Is this uniqueness you are talking about confined to the all of the other parts? Revelation etc? I dont think Jesus teachings were unique at all. They came from another source as all Religious teachings do. Call it the evoultion of Religion maybe?

After all Jesus vanished at a early age only to appear around 30 years old( nothing is written in the bible about where he went) One clue might be the story of John the Baptist. Why was Jesus baptised by John (although i know John felt he was unworthy of the task) and Jesus once said "I tell you, among those born of women there is no one greater than John ..." This suggests a link between John and Jesus(yes i know they were related)A possible Essien teaching maybe? John was beheaded as you probably know, obviously because he was a threat to the Roman rule at the time. The killing of John may shed light on the crucifiction of Jesus. Did the Jews really ask for him to be killed? Or was that pinned on them to help the spread of Christianity. It wouldnt of spread if the Romans had been the guilty party!

[rgs2001uk]

Thank you for all the links, rgs2001uk. I can't answer all the points here... just one or two!

The attacks on the Catholic Church were irrelevant because this thread was specifically not about any particular church or denomination. It was intended, for the sake of those who have quoted the Bible, often incorrectly, to show exactly what the Bible said, NOT how people have interpreted it. I think that has to be a starting point for any discussion of what Christianity in general has to say about homosexuality.

I particularly liked this thread, though it is about Catholicism, not about the Bible quotes:-

http://www.bbc.co.uk...europe-17973830

It shows active discussion going on in the Catholic Church... to which there is, as was to be expected, a lot of entrenched opposition. There is going to be more and more of this kind of discussion, and eventually the Church is going to change. I say eventually because I am aware it may take a very long while.

One final word from me anyway.... and this is to the atheists as much as the Christians, Catholic or otherwise. Each one of us has to make up our own mind what to believe and what to reject. I respect this, and I do not abuse you or your beliefs. I can't help feeling (and I am sure this is heretical!) that God would rather have an honest atheist than someone who hasn't bothered to apply his mind to the question one way or another..

IB, no need to answer, my reason for posting is to inform people of whats going on, not to be confrontational, and it certainly isnt anything personal, please dont take it that way.

Its about offering people choices that best suit their needs and allowing people to make an informed decision

Its certainly nothing to do with the Church of Rome, I am more than happy to have a pop at any of them, and expose their shortcomings.

I am well aware that if we were living in a bygone era I would certainly be hauled up infront of the Grand Inquisitor for having the audacity to question.

Edited March 21, 2013 by rgs2001uk

[isanbirder]

I am well aware that if we were living in a bygone era I would certainly be hauled up infront of the Grand Inquisitor for having the audacity to question.

So no doubt would I!

[tombkk]

Can we please get back on topic? The topic is what the Bible says about being gay. This is the gay forum, not the religions forum, so future non-gay-related posts about the bible will be deleted.

[thaicbr]

Can we please get back on topic? The topic is what the Bible says about being gay. This is the gay forum, not the religions forum, so future non-gay-related posts about the bible will be deleted.

Are there actually gay related things in the bible?

Sent from my GT-P1010 using Thaivisa Connect App

[endure]

Can we please get back on topic? The topic is what the Bible says about being gay. This is the gay forum, not the religions forum, so future non-gay-related posts about the bible will be deleted.

Are there actually gay related things in the bible?

Sent from my GT-P1010 using Thaivisa Connect App

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Bible_and_homosexuality

[LeCharivari]

Can we please get back on topic? The topic is what the Bible says about being gay. This is the gay forum, not the religions forum, so future non-gay-related posts about the bible will be deleted.

Are there actually gay related things in the bible?

Sent from my GT-P1010 using Thaivisa Connect App

Nothing I'm aware of in the illustrated versions ...

Edited March 24, 2013 by LeCharivari

[tombkk]

Can we please get back on topic? The topic is what the Bible says about being gay. This is the gay forum, not the religions forum, so future non-gay-related posts about the bible will be deleted.

Are there actually gay related things in the bible?

Sent from my GT-P1010 using Thaivisa Connect App

Exactly that question is the subject of this topic.

[Suradit69]

http://canyonwalkerconnections.com/the-reformation-project-from-matthew-vines-training-christians-to-eradicate-homophobia-in-the-church/

Edited March 27, 2013 by Suradit69