Is the Bible Homophobic?

What's up with the pope?

Freedom Of Religion? Baptists Ban Chaplains From Even Attending Weddings Of Same-Sex Couples
http://thenewcivilrightsmovement.com/freedom-of-religion-baptists-ban-chaplains-from-even-attending-weddings-of-same-sex-couples/discrimination/2013/09/06/74572

UK bishop: Church must say sorry for its treatment of gay people
See more at:
http://www.gaystarnews.com/article/uk-bishop-church-must-say-sorry-its-treatment-gay-people100913#sthash.Bgbfe9tr.dpuf

Homophobia is defined as the hatred towards LGBT communities or individual. As a Christian, I certainly do not think that the bible is homophobic. Jesus hated sin, but he loved the sinner, as shown in his forgiveness of an women who committed adultery. And the very fact that Jesus came to Earth shows that God cares for the sinners salvation. The bible is God's word. If God hated LGBT individuals, why would he send His Son to die for our sins, when he could have left us on our own. Therefore, it is my view that the bible is not homophobic, because God condemned the practice of homosexuality but tried to bring homosexuals back to Him. I too love the sinner but hate the sin, and I'm sure most Christians who read God's word feel the same.

Which is to say, you read the bible selectively. Haven't read Leviticus, huh?

In the case of Leviticus, God destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah because the people refused to repent. It remains the same for today. We are to seek forgiveness from God for our sins, because the wages of sin is death. God have given us a chance to be saved, whether or not we accept the chance is up to us, but we cannot blame God if we don't want take that chance.

He destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah because they were rude to a pair of angels. "Wages are," you semi-literate practitioner of superstition. The implication of your little screed is that homosexuality is a sin, for which one must repent or be destroyed. Nice guy, that god of yours. The god of the bible is a hateful, vindictive, childish, murderous asshole.

Sorry I saw wrongly. The story of sodom and Gomorrah happens in Genesis, not Leviticus. But anyway, be sure to look through Genesis 19 before making a sweeping remark that "they were just rude to the angels". I think there is a much bigger reference to homosexuality in that chapter itself. As for Leviticus., I assume you were referring to following selective laws and abandoning certain laws, like not eating shellfish etc. My view is, since Leviticus is not the last book of the bible, its law are not necessarily binding to us today. In the New Testament, Jesus establishes a new covenant and declared all food clean. When Jesus died on the cross, he put an end to all Old Testament laws, and instead we are under the law of Christ. Therefore food and cleanliness law are no longer in place, but only the moral laws, which include homosexuality..

FYI. "The wages of sin is death" is quoted from the bible and there is no grammatical error. You want to find out why? Just google it.

I don't see why you have to use disparaging remarks on my literacy in a discussion like this. Whether or not we believe in Christ does not affect our literacy

You read Genesis yourself, the only overt act which can be alleged against those people was to have been rude to a couple of angels. Given people living in walled cities in those times, demanding to know who was staying in someone's house overnight was perfectly reasonable. There is no passage in Genesis which states that the inhabitants of those two cities were practicing homosexuality, and if there were, it would just be more evidence that your fairy tale god hates homosexuals. I see, though, that you continue to condemn homosexuality. Your boy Jesus not only never "repealed" the laws of the Pentateuch, he stated that not a jot or tittle of the law would pass from the law until heaven and earth pass away. "Your view" is the standard modern christian song and dance to avoid acknowledging that your god is a sociopathic monster.

"Wages is" is grammatically incorrect not matter whether or not it is part of your book of superstitious fairy tales. You can have your own opinions, but you don't get to have your own personal grammar. That is why i disparage your literacy.

And I think you misunderstood the meaning of repent. Repent does not mean changing completely and not sin at all. I'm sure that most men, including myself, lust. Now lusting is a sin. And the fact is, many of us can't stop lusting. So, does it mean that we have to be destroyed? As Christians, a vital thing for us is to struggle against sin. We sure can't be sinless, but we can certainly sin less. I think it's the same thing for homosexuals. I won't deny that some are born with homosexual attractions. But just because we are born with those attractions, doesn't mean we have to carry it out sexually. It's just like, just because I am born to lust, doesn't give me the right to go out there and 'have fun' and ignore what God said.

If you believe that the bible is a superstitious fairy tale, and don't believe anything in it, does that mean you don't believe in Jesus? Just curious to know:)

I understand what repent means, and i sure as hell don't need instruction in the English language from you. You are condemning homosexuality, and you are making Rex's case that the bible is homophobic. You seem to think that you're somehow being generous and compassionate in acknowledging that there are homosexuals. You still want to condemn them if they engage in homosexual activity. That's because you believe in an intolerant and hateful bronze age superstition

There is no historical evidence that your boy "Jesus" ever existed. (By the way, the letter "J" did not exist in any language 2000 years ago.) Do i believe that there cold have been an alleged rabbi named Yeshua running around Palestine 2000 years ago? I think you could not have tossed a handful of pea gravel at a crowd in Jerusalem in those days without hitting some clown named Yeshua who claimed to be a teacher, a rabbi. Do i believe in all the horseshit modern christians peddle about their Jesus cartoon character? Not on your life.

So your claim is that Jesus was just a moral teacher if he existed?
Btw, most historians and scholars agree that Jesus existed, even historians like Josephus and Tacitus acknowledged someone name Jesus existed.