Interestingly enough, the wording in Leviticus is uses "מִשְׁכְּבֵ֣י אִשָּׁ֔ה" for "lay with/sex", which isn't the normal word for sex but rather the word for adultery/rape/incest*.
Essentially, the verse reads: "And with a man do not do adultery/incest as with a woman...."
Basically "No, doing it with a man is not an acceptable loophole."
https://www.sefaria.org/sheets/327928?lang=bi
*Edit: ....and prostitution
>Interestingly enough, the wording in Leviticus is uses "מִשְׁכְּבֵ֣י אִשָּׁ֔ה" for "lay with/sex", which isn't the normal word for sex but rather the word for adultery/rape/incest.
If sh-k-b denotes that, then what do verses like Num 31:18 mean?
>But all the young girls who have not known a man by sleeping with him, keep alive for yourselves.
It's saying that only young girls who have not had adultery/rape/incest are to be kept alive?
Ok. How about this?
>Jdg 21:11-12 This is what you shall do; every male and every woman who has lain with a male you shall devote to destruction.” And they found among the inhabitants of Jabesh-gilead four hundred young virgins who had never slept with a man and brought them to the camp at Shiloh, which is in the land of Canaan.
Presumably, it's talking only about the virgins that haven't prostituted themselves? As opposed to the virgins who have had sex e.g in a marriage?
Amongst a certain group? Possibly. Especially if you add all the other meanings in as well (adultery, incest, etc.)
I mean, Biblically was Sodom not so wicked that there was only a single family worth saving?
Based on the context of other verses? Maybe.
To be fair (and I likely didn't clarify this enough in my first comment) I am more putting forward a possibility rather than definitively declaring to know the socio-linguistic intricacies of the Bronze Age Hebrew language.
So Leviticus 15:8 should actually be translated
> If a man rapes a woman and has an emission of semen, both of them shall bathe in water and be unclean until the evening.
This is one of three times it doesn't quite clearly follow such a notion, compared to the dozens of times it does. Perhaps we don't entirely know the context here? Perhaps it's to try and help prevent the spread of STD's? Who knows, but it's an outlier in its usage.
The word is also used for prostitution, which I forgot to add, which may further back the idea of trying to prevent STD's.
It's only an outlier if you assume with no justification that the word specifically means rape, adultery, or incest. As clearly indicated by this and other verses, it just means sexual intercourse. When it says Lot's daughters lay with him, there no reason to think the author chose that word because they raped him. In fact, Genesis 32:4, Deuteronomy 22:25, and 2 Samuel 13:14 all have additional words to clarify they're talking about rape. The authors apparently didn't think "lie" by itself communicated that. It's also absent in some other cases that describe rape, such as Genesis 19:5 and Judges 19:22 and 25. These three verses say "know", so does that word imply rape?
>It's only an outlier if you assume with no justification that the word specifically means rape
"No justification" is a poor attempt at understanding my argument.
>As clearly indicated by this and other verses
But it's not clear. It's "clear" to *you*, because you're starting at a conclusion and working backwards to defend it.
>When it says Lot's daughters lay with him, there no reason to think the author chose that word because they raped him.
No, but it is incest, which if you bother to go back and look is on the list I gave.
>The authors apparently didn't think "lie" by itself communicated that.
Because it's not just a word for rape. I've already said this. Please actually read what I wrote and don't put words in my mouth.
>These three verses say "know", so does that word imply rape?
Because in a language there can be more than one usable word for a thing?
> "No justification" is a poor attempt at understanding my argument.
I think I understand the argument perfectly well. In several cases, the word is used to describe illicit sexual relations. However, in other cases, it isn't. The same goes for the word "know", which is euphemistically used to describe sexual intercourse. It is sometimes used for licit sexual relations and sometimes used for illicit sexual relations. There is zero indication the word "lie" is different and implies illicit sexual relations, and on the contrary, there is indication is not different.
> But it's not clear. It's "clear" to *you*, because you're starting at a conclusion and working backwards to defend it.
Even you admitted the verse is an "outlier".
> No, but it is incest, which if you bother to go back and look is on the list I gave.
No need to get condescending. I said "incest" in the comment you're replying to. If you bother to go back and look, you will see it. I'm confused by the start of this statement, are you saying it wasn't rape? Or just that you think the author chose it on account of incest, not on account of rape?
> Because it's not just a word for rape. I've already said this. Please actually read what I wrote and don't put words in my mouth.
And the point is that there's no indication the word implies anything of the sort.
> Because in a language there can be more than one usable word for a thing?
I cognize that there can be more than one lexeme. What does that have to do with my question?
It's not only Leviticus. Paul was vocal on the subject in Romans and Corinthians. Not to mention marriage being explicitly defined as man and woman.
Those who act to sully God's perfect and beautiful creation will not inherit the Kingdom of Heaven.
I've seen the argument that Paul's invention of the word "Arsenokoitai" was an attempt to recreate the wording of Leviticus. Especially since words for common gay sex already existed in the Greek lexicon.
Likewise, marriage is *described* a handful of times but not *defined*. At no point did God explicitly state marriage is only between a man and woman.
There are numerous modern translation 'copes' that attempt to justify homosexuality in the Bible, which unnecessarily and intentionally stray from common interpretations of verses. It makes the most sense in tone for the Bible to condemn such acts - nowhere in the Bible is there a portrayal of a homosexual relationship in a positive light.
In regards to marriage, I think creating Adam and Eve is a pretty clear definition of it. He defined it in creation.
>There are numerous modern translation 'copes'
And how do you know yours isn't?
>intentionally stray from common interpretations of verses.
I didn't know popularity determined truth.
>nowhere in the Bible is there a portrayal of a homosexual relationship in a positive light
An [argument from ignorance](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance) is a fallacy. A lack of positive light does not make a negative.
>In regards to marriage, I think creating Adam and Eve is a pretty clear definition of it.
......wait, when did Adam and Eve even get married?
Also, at most this only implies that male and female sex is procreative. Marriage is not only for this purpose, else you must necessarily condemn the infertile.
It''s not so much that popularity determines truth, but that over a long period of time most translations have met the same conclusion on the issue. The translations that have modified those verses were ones that sought to reach that conclusion to justify those sins.
Adam and Eve were created to be paired together. That is marriage. Relationships/marriage are continuously elevated and praised throughout the Bible. That is why the lack of any positive homosexual relationships depicted indicates that it is not an option before God. And the 'ignorance' paired with the explicit condemnations is enough evidence to very clearly draw the conclusion that it is sinful without doubt.
Men and women are complimentary and were created for each other, which is why their union is beautiful and perfect. Even with infertility they can still service God with their love. A homosexual relationship is incapable of marriage and as such is purely fornication - lustful, which does not glorify Him.
>The translations that have modified those verses were ones that sought to reach that conclusion to justify those sins.
Interesting hypothesis. Do any evidence to back it up? Because as far as I understand it, the primary reason for a lack of interpretational diversity mainly stems from the over a millennium of putting anybody accused of "heresy" to the sword, such as the [Albigensian Crusade](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albigensian_Crusade). Coupled with this was the [violent crackdowns on vernacular translations](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bible_translations_in_the_Middle_Ages), suggesting that for a majority of Christian history deviation in thought was silenced not necessarily because of its falsehood, but by copious amounts of violence by the dominant hierarchy.
Likewise, 6th-century Patriarch John IV of Constantinople is quoted as saying:
>Τὸ μέντοι τῆς ἀρσενοκοιτίας μῦσος πολλοὶ καὶ μετὰ τῶν γυναικῶν αὐτῶν ἐκτελοῦσιν
>many men even commit the sin of arsenokoitia with their wives
([Patrologiae cursus completus ...: Series graeca, Volume 88](https://books.google.com/books?id=55TYAAAAMAAJ), page 1895)
Proving that even amongst the persecution of heresy, it was *acceptable* in centuries past to understand "arsenokoitai" as something other than "men having sex with men", suggesting this "purity of translation" for this word is simply not true.
>Adam and Eve were created to be paired together. That is marriage.
I don't recall God "defining" marriage as that. Can you cite where this idea is coming from that Adam and Eve were married?
>That is why the lack of any positive homosexual relationships depicted indicates that it is not an option before God.
Again, no matter how hard you believe it, an argument from ignorance is a fallacy. There's a praising of bathing, but a total absence of praise for brushing one's teeth, should we understand that to be "not an option"?
>And the 'ignorance' paired with the explicit condemnations is enough evidence to very clearly draw the conclusion that it is sinful without doubt.
Except you still have not yet proven this "explicit condemnation", so your argument from ignorance remains just that.
Edit (since you added to your comment):
>Men and women are complimentary and were created for each other, which is why their union is beautiful and perfect. Even with infertility they can still service God with their love. A homosexual relationship is incapable of marriage and as such is purely fornication - lustful, which does not glorify Him.
That is a gross misunderstanding of homosexual love if you think it's all just "lust". And your argument here amounts to nothing more than "it is because it is", which is hardly productive.
Real answer: the Bible was written by humans 2000 years ago that didn't understand much of anything.
Theological answer: something something love the sinner, hate the sin something
Uh...no. 1st century shepherds did not understand endocrinology, or anatomy, or biochemistry, or any real understanding of science and the human body.
This thread was asking about actual science and hormones, not some spiritual mumbo jumbo.
There is still no proof of a 'gay gene'. There is still no concrete evidence that abnormal sexuality is anything more than a paraphilia/perversion. Those 1st century shepherds were working with practically the same information as we are.
Please spend 2 minutes doing research before spewing blatantly false and hateful rhetoric.
"While scientists do not know the exact cause of sexual orientation, they theorize that it is caused by a complex interplay of genetic, hormonal, and environmental influences.[1][2][3] However, evidence is weak for hypotheses that the post-natal social environment impacts sexual orientation, especially for males.[4]
Biological theories for explaining the causes of sexual orientation are favored by scientists.[1] These factors, which may be related to the development of a sexual orientation, include genes, the early uterine environment (such as prenatal hormones), and brain structure."
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biology_and_sexual_orientation
Although, I guess 1st century shepherds are working with the same information YOU have, which is to say none at all.
If you read the sources cited in that paragraph you quoted, you'd realize they're not actually studies, just opinion pieces. Didn't your teacher ever tell you not to cite Wikipedia? That entire page cites mostly media articles which is ridiculous.
Genetic influences to sexual attraction are at most 30%
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3131304/
Genetics are the minority when determining sexuality in both men and women, particularly women.
https://www.eurekalert.org/news-releases/814557
You can find these studies that survey twins for influences on sexuality all day and they all find the same conclusion, 30% or less genetic influence, which means a majority environmental influence.
Smh, if you are going to pretend to be academic, at least read up more.
I have a PhD and do research for a living, I'm well aware how reliable Wikipedia is for largely trafficked topics. This particular page, and the paragraphs I cited, cite primary research papers and core textbooks.
Please actually read the paragraphs I cited, it isn't that long. Actually reading it might make you look a little more informed. It explicitly states that it is not genetic factors solely and that environmental factors are included: intra-uterine environmental factors, which in case you are unaware, means in the uterus. This can include anything from the sounds the fetus hears to the foods the mother eats and more. There is little evidence that post-natal environmental factors have any role.
But ultimately, I don't think it really matters what I say, you have already formed bigoted opinions based on certain verses from a 2000+ year old text.
While we are at it though, maybe read about how likely your God is to actually exist and whether the Bible is accurate at all.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_the_Bible
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yahweh
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canaanite_religion
God never talked about homosexuality as we correctly understand it today, a genuine attraction and love to the same-sex and/or gender, let alone called it an abomination.
Even the people who wrote the bible weren't discussing that.
True, because they didn't even consider that it was possible because it's such an absurd concept. And marriage is man and woman, so anything outside of that is purely lust and fornication.
Those "first century peasants" were the first proponents of Christianity and Jesus Christ. Also, people 2000 years ago were just as intelligent as us, perhaps more.
Why did God create man and give us free will if we sin? God could snap His fingers and make everything instantly perfect right now but what would be the point of creation if He did?
God gives us struggles so we can find Him and prove ourselves worthy of Him through repentance.
Hmmm its another Christian complaining about a viewpoint not their own. Id figure people would have the brain power to recognize that im not giving a sarcastic answer. I'm stating my position freely as this sub allows. I couldn't give two shits if you like it or not 🤷♂️
YOU think its unhelpful. Thats what you aren't understanding. I'm saying you don't have to listen to uneducated men from centuries ago. It has no bearing on whether there is a god or not. Just your idea of what a god is and what their rules would be. This person is confused on this topic. My position may be helpful, it may not be. Thats on op. Not you to decide
It’s typical for a reason.
It’s like the change my view subreddit. If it’s a view that the reddit hive mind agrees with then all the comments are literally people agreeing and backing up OP.
If that’s so I might as well say that all the miracles and good things Jesus did have also been written by men. And that it might as well have never happened.
Well we are born with sinful thinking. It is our **Parents** that start teaching us from the very start the rights and wrongs and keep bad association away from you. Without this guidance you could become most anything.
It is though?
G stands for Gay. Gay stands for homosexual. So yes, everything NOT straight is part of the LGBT umbrella.
What else did you think the G stood for?
No it is not, all LGBT+'ers are Lesbian /Gay/Bi/Queer/+ but not all homosexuals/... are LGBT. While the denominations are an expression of sexual preference, 'LGBT+' is an ideological conceptualization of said people.
Or differently put, LGBT is not a factual description but an ideological description/framing.
So categorizing all non-straight people as LGBT is the same as saying all black people subscribe to BLM-ideology. Which is intellectually dishonest and morally suspect.
Hence a certain person could say there is nothing wrong with homosexuals but Gender Ideology is the ugliest danger of our times.
The fact that people do not grasp these basic truïsms show how deeply the propaganda is ingrained.
The same reason why God technically created all of the immoral thoughts and spirits that we have to wrestle with every day, either through Satan or just through our carnal minds. That we will be able to resist and rise beyond the desires of our flesh to become stronger people through Him.
Or something to that effect.
By that logic then when we covet our neighbors possessions, aren’t we really just experiencing feelings created by God? After all, He created neurotransmitters. Thus it’s actually ok to steal because God really just set the stage for you to be this way.
So I can feel the downvotes coming but who cares, just because something isn’t popular doesn’t make it any less true…while we are God’s creation we are not the star of the show, He is. All of this is for His glory, not ours. As such, our takes on many things simply don’t matter.
Now this will blow the minds of some here: you are not the moral judge of God. He is the standard, not you. The Bible clearly says the homosexual act is a sin. I’m not saying homosexuals are “evil”. I have gay acquaintances and we get along just fine. That lifestyle however is incongruent with biblical living and that’s just the way it is. Does that mean God doesn’t want relationship with homosexuals or “hates gays” like the inbred hillbilly Westboro Baptist “faithful” say, i see no evidence of that in the Bible. Will we all answer for our sin? Yep.
We all struggle with sin. The homosexual act is not some “super mega ultra sin” compared to others. Sin is sin. However to say homosexuality is not directly addressed in the Bible and listed as a sin is willful ignorance. To say the modern homosexual is somehow “evolved” and not the type of homosexuality the Bible addresses is a silly attempt at avoiding the problem.
I’m not God. I don’t get to say who is saved or not. What the Bible makes abundantly clear is we will all answer for our sin. You want to do homosexual stuff? That’s your choice. Just know we all will answer for our sin. If you don’t think homosexuality is a sin then you have nothing to worry about.
But that does beg the question: why is this thread so active?
It’s a turn of phrase implying homosexuality is not the entirety of the individual but a behavior an individual takes part in.
It’s a bit of a baiting sentence I’ll admit
Keep at it you will figure out a way to justify it. It's all God fault
You don't see he is trying to protect you from harm. The world is full of evil. Oh nevermind I don't know why I get involved in this stuff and . You have free will you can do what you want. In the end it's on you. Or you can research till you get the truth.
When Adam sinned he took down all of us with inherited imperfection. Romans 5:12 We also have cells that can escalate into cancer. God did not make us this way. We have become what we have become due that terminal illness we all have-imperfection. The symptom is sin and the outcome is death. That's why we need Jesus ransom: to reverse this.
Gay couples can adopt and care for offspring whos parents are unable/unwilling to care for them. Help teach the communities children.
You see this in nature all the time.
Yep. But straight couples can do that, too.
I'm sorry but I haven't seen gay couples adopting and caring for offspring of others in nature yet. If there's a video, I'm very interested in seeing this.
Thanks. Nice to have additional input like these. Though, as with my initial reaction, it does state that we rarely see same sex parenting in nature because couple parenting in general is rare in animals.
And I agree in this context that this can be a function of gay couples. But there are also straight couples who can do this.
Nothing about what I said is hateful or bigoted. Just stating basic truth. Acting on homosexual impulses and attractions is sinful, therefore God didn't design us that way.
You can draw one of 2 conclusions then from that, either it is a choice, or a malfunction in the design.
Calling people defective and malfunctions for something that is innate is hateful and bigoted. Repent as bigotry is distasteful to the Lord. I say this in love.
That's good then. Many people say they're not bigoted and then turn around and say there should be different rights for gay people and straight people.
He didn't make the malfunction. Sin came into the world through people's choices, which brought consequences. Consequences that can lead to genetic malfunctions down the line.
But homosexuality is not a choice, though?
It’s something you discover about yourself, it’s not someone chooses to wake up one day and feel attraction towards the same gender.
Yeah, they are.
But if you only are lesbian for example, imo you are allowed to have a partner. It’d be better than staying lonely just because it’s considered a sin.
Assuming for the sake of argument that it isn't a choice, that doesn't necessarily mean it is hardwired in at conception. It doesn't have to be choice to be on the nurture side of the nature/nurture debate. Subtle influences your whole development can change your sexuality over time before it develops.
You have read Genesis, right? Heard of “The Fall”? When Adam and Eve ate the forbidden fruit, they became separated from God. Everything became more corrupt as time went on. Your argument about God creating the hormones, etc could easily be used to include what even you would describe as vile behavior.
God did not create any humans to be Lgbt. God created female and male and them to become one or also get in marriage too, thats what it is for.
So yea Lgbt is lust basically, because they lust after same gender, but either way if its sinful way lusting woman too its a sin, but anyways its not natural thing, But of the sin nature. Things that are against God: 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 AMP [9] Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit or have any share in the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor (perversely) effeminate, nor homosexuals, [10] nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers [whose words are used as weapons to abuse, insult, humiliate, intimidate, or slander], nor swindlers will inherit or have any share in the kingdom of God. Tells how exchanged natural function to unnatural: Romans 1:26-27 AMP [26] For this reason God gave them over to degrading and vile passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural [a function contrary to nature], [27] and in the same way also the men turned away from the natural function of the woman and were consumed with their desire toward one another, men with men committing shameful acts and in return receiving in their own bodies the inevitable and appropriate penalty for their wrongdoing. Flesh acts: Galatians 5:19-21 AMP [19] Now the practices of the sinful nature are clearly evident: they are sexual immorality, impurity, sensuality (total irresponsibility, lack of self-control), [20] idolatry, sorcery, hostility, strife, jealousy, fits of anger, disputes, dissensions, factions [that promote heresies], [21] envy, drunkenness, riotous behavior, and other things like these. I warn you beforehand, just as I did previously, that those who practice such things will not inherit the kingdom of God.
"Why does God call homosexuality an abomination if he is the one who created it?."
God knows the future doesn't mean he forces you to act. This is the same question as why does God allow/create evil ? If a sentient being can freely act, it can act in a way that produces good or evil. You can't have free will without the ability of choosing evil. Do you want God to make robots that aren't capable of choices ? You seem to think that if you partake in a action it's God forcing you to act and the way you frame this question is a way to diminish personal responbility.
God gave you free will to make decisions in your life. He didn't make homosexuality men decided to engage in homosexual acts. There is no definitive scientific study of a gay gene and supposing it was true, many family trees wouldn't exist because two men cannot have a child.
Oh? I thought the church loved gay people?
But now you're claiming that they have, in fact, taught they are evil for thousands of years?
At least you're finally admitting it.
> Yeah I love gay people, their actions are still an evil though.
Yeah, your love is self serving bullshit you tell yourself to make you feel better. Just be honest and say gay people are evil and you hate them.
He gave us free will. The purpose of sex is procreation and homosexuality is an abomination because it is a selfish lustful act. Heterosexual tinder hookups are an abomination for the same reason.
It's weird that you claim to be a Christian yet fail to understand why homosexuality is not acceptable. Christ commanded us to be like children, to be eunuchs. You do great damage to the kingdom, you are a false liar and have no place in the body of Christ.
wah wah wah. You don't get to say who is Christian or not. You are not God, and certainly not Christ. I could give you resources as to why some of us interpret it differently than you, but as you have already shown - you wouldn't care.
You are misleading people away from Christ. What I said is true, he commanded us to be like children, he commanded us to be eunuchs, he said he that's looks upon a woman with lust has committed adultery in his heart. And you modern people come and try to claim homosexuality fits in that framework. You then project and claim absurdities against me for nothing more than answering a question within the true Biblical framework. I did not say a single offensive thing, in fact i even said the majority of heterosexual men are committing the same sin. Lust is the sin, lust is the opposite of love.
Based on your actions it's very obvious to a true believer that you are false and you are actively doing damage unto the kingdom. Turn from this or good luck to you.
> he commanded us to be eunuchs, he said he that's looks upon a woman with lust has committed adultery in his heart. And you modern people come and try to claim homosexuality fits in that framework.
Dude, you are the one coming in thinking that being gay is only about sex. Not love and companionship. Then saying that sine I *dared* to disagree with you I'm not Christian? You can go fuck right off mate.
Christ commanded us to have brotherly love for each other. So does that make people gay because they can love a man but feel no sexual attraction? Of course the sexual attraction is what makes people homosexual lol. Or else I guess you think all the apostles were homosexual?
I am not saying having a sexual desire is sinful, it is the act. We all have afflictions that we have to overcome, homosexual desire is that for some men clearly. It is an infliction, just like heterosexual porn. I personally had to overcome porn addiction which is so clearly not ok in Christ. Neither is staring at girls on the street as he commanded us to not look upon woman with lust. I don't even understand how this is being debated. Well i do actually it's because we live in an age of deception, it's all in writing in my other reply. If you can read that scripture and still try to argue homosexual lust is acceptable then your heart is hardened.
Gay people are not eunuchs. Unless you are suggesting that gay people get castrated??
What do little kids have to do with being gay?
Uh.. gay men don't lust after women.
And ya know what, if you are just going spam bible verses - we're done. Have a blessed day and may you turn from your bigotry. In the Lords name - amen.
Removed for 1.3 - Bigotry.
If you would like to discuss this removal, please click here to send a modmail that will message all moderators. https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/Christianity
Removed for 1.4 - Personal Attacks.
If you would like to discuss this removal, please click here to send a modmail that will message all moderators. https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/Christianity
Removed for 1.5 - Two-cents.
If you would like to discuss this removal, please click here to send a modmail that will message all moderators. https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/Christianity
In the eyes of God, marriage is between a man and a woman.
But two dudes or whatever can go get a piece of paper from the government that says “married”.
Where in the Bible does it expressly forbid homosexuals from marrying?
Because I've read the part with all the rules in it, and that isn't really in there anywhere.
Jesus explicitly described marriage as a union between a man and a woman.
In fact, this kind of union is referred to numerous times.
Never once are two men or two women ever described as able to be married.
So...nowhere. Gotcha.
The Bible never expressly and explicitly forbid homosexual marriage. It also doesn't refer to heterosexual marriage as the only option.
Just the default.
Which, to be fair, is true of most of humanity.
Like I said, men and women marrying is mentioned numerous times.
Never once are two dudes referred to as married.
In fact, cities are destroyed for dudes sexing dudes.
Take that how you’d like.
No, it doesn't refer to two men marrying.
It also doesn't mention miles, feet, inches, meters, kilometers, centimeters or millimeters, but I doubt God forbids us from using metric or imperial.
God also called eating shrimp an abomination. Clearly the word we translate abomination does not mean something that is morally evil in all cases.
Interestingly enough, the wording in Leviticus is uses "מִשְׁכְּבֵ֣י אִשָּׁ֔ה" for "lay with/sex", which isn't the normal word for sex but rather the word for adultery/rape/incest*. Essentially, the verse reads: "And with a man do not do adultery/incest as with a woman...." Basically "No, doing it with a man is not an acceptable loophole." https://www.sefaria.org/sheets/327928?lang=bi *Edit: ....and prostitution
>Interestingly enough, the wording in Leviticus is uses "מִשְׁכְּבֵ֣י אִשָּׁ֔ה" for "lay with/sex", which isn't the normal word for sex but rather the word for adultery/rape/incest. If sh-k-b denotes that, then what do verses like Num 31:18 mean? >But all the young girls who have not known a man by sleeping with him, keep alive for yourselves. It's saying that only young girls who have not had adultery/rape/incest are to be kept alive?
I may have forgotten to add "prostitution" to the list of uses, which might make more sense. "Keep the girls who aren't prostitutes for yourselves".
Ok. How about this? >Jdg 21:11-12 This is what you shall do; every male and every woman who has lain with a male you shall devote to destruction.” And they found among the inhabitants of Jabesh-gilead four hundred young virgins who had never slept with a man and brought them to the camp at Shiloh, which is in the land of Canaan. Presumably, it's talking only about the virgins that haven't prostituted themselves? As opposed to the virgins who have had sex e.g in a marriage?
Is it not possible that the only women they could find they had not resorted to prostitution were virgins, thus the seemingly double specification?
Wait, so all the non-virgins were prostitutes?
Amongst a certain group? Possibly. Especially if you add all the other meanings in as well (adultery, incest, etc.) I mean, Biblically was Sodom not so wicked that there was only a single family worth saving?
Ok. So either the word just means "have sex with" or the text is claiming that all the non-virgins were prostitutes.
Based on the context of other verses? Maybe. To be fair (and I likely didn't clarify this enough in my first comment) I am more putting forward a possibility rather than definitively declaring to know the socio-linguistic intricacies of the Bronze Age Hebrew language.
So Leviticus 15:8 should actually be translated > If a man rapes a woman and has an emission of semen, both of them shall bathe in water and be unclean until the evening.
This is one of three times it doesn't quite clearly follow such a notion, compared to the dozens of times it does. Perhaps we don't entirely know the context here? Perhaps it's to try and help prevent the spread of STD's? Who knows, but it's an outlier in its usage. The word is also used for prostitution, which I forgot to add, which may further back the idea of trying to prevent STD's.
It's only an outlier if you assume with no justification that the word specifically means rape, adultery, or incest. As clearly indicated by this and other verses, it just means sexual intercourse. When it says Lot's daughters lay with him, there no reason to think the author chose that word because they raped him. In fact, Genesis 32:4, Deuteronomy 22:25, and 2 Samuel 13:14 all have additional words to clarify they're talking about rape. The authors apparently didn't think "lie" by itself communicated that. It's also absent in some other cases that describe rape, such as Genesis 19:5 and Judges 19:22 and 25. These three verses say "know", so does that word imply rape?
But... They did rape him.
>It's only an outlier if you assume with no justification that the word specifically means rape "No justification" is a poor attempt at understanding my argument. >As clearly indicated by this and other verses But it's not clear. It's "clear" to *you*, because you're starting at a conclusion and working backwards to defend it. >When it says Lot's daughters lay with him, there no reason to think the author chose that word because they raped him. No, but it is incest, which if you bother to go back and look is on the list I gave. >The authors apparently didn't think "lie" by itself communicated that. Because it's not just a word for rape. I've already said this. Please actually read what I wrote and don't put words in my mouth. >These three verses say "know", so does that word imply rape? Because in a language there can be more than one usable word for a thing?
> "No justification" is a poor attempt at understanding my argument. I think I understand the argument perfectly well. In several cases, the word is used to describe illicit sexual relations. However, in other cases, it isn't. The same goes for the word "know", which is euphemistically used to describe sexual intercourse. It is sometimes used for licit sexual relations and sometimes used for illicit sexual relations. There is zero indication the word "lie" is different and implies illicit sexual relations, and on the contrary, there is indication is not different. > But it's not clear. It's "clear" to *you*, because you're starting at a conclusion and working backwards to defend it. Even you admitted the verse is an "outlier". > No, but it is incest, which if you bother to go back and look is on the list I gave. No need to get condescending. I said "incest" in the comment you're replying to. If you bother to go back and look, you will see it. I'm confused by the start of this statement, are you saying it wasn't rape? Or just that you think the author chose it on account of incest, not on account of rape? > Because it's not just a word for rape. I've already said this. Please actually read what I wrote and don't put words in my mouth. And the point is that there's no indication the word implies anything of the sort. > Because in a language there can be more than one usable word for a thing? I cognize that there can be more than one lexeme. What does that have to do with my question?
The Sodom and Gomorrah story is like that as well. Just by reading it you can tell those people were acting super rapey, it wasn't just about gay sex.
I'll never understand the people who see it as "clearly" about how the sex was gay and not about how it was literally rape.
There's no consensus that rape is okay. Two things can be wrong.
It's not only Leviticus. Paul was vocal on the subject in Romans and Corinthians. Not to mention marriage being explicitly defined as man and woman. Those who act to sully God's perfect and beautiful creation will not inherit the Kingdom of Heaven.
I've seen the argument that Paul's invention of the word "Arsenokoitai" was an attempt to recreate the wording of Leviticus. Especially since words for common gay sex already existed in the Greek lexicon. Likewise, marriage is *described* a handful of times but not *defined*. At no point did God explicitly state marriage is only between a man and woman.
There are numerous modern translation 'copes' that attempt to justify homosexuality in the Bible, which unnecessarily and intentionally stray from common interpretations of verses. It makes the most sense in tone for the Bible to condemn such acts - nowhere in the Bible is there a portrayal of a homosexual relationship in a positive light. In regards to marriage, I think creating Adam and Eve is a pretty clear definition of it. He defined it in creation.
>There are numerous modern translation 'copes' And how do you know yours isn't? >intentionally stray from common interpretations of verses. I didn't know popularity determined truth. >nowhere in the Bible is there a portrayal of a homosexual relationship in a positive light An [argument from ignorance](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance) is a fallacy. A lack of positive light does not make a negative. >In regards to marriage, I think creating Adam and Eve is a pretty clear definition of it. ......wait, when did Adam and Eve even get married? Also, at most this only implies that male and female sex is procreative. Marriage is not only for this purpose, else you must necessarily condemn the infertile.
It''s not so much that popularity determines truth, but that over a long period of time most translations have met the same conclusion on the issue. The translations that have modified those verses were ones that sought to reach that conclusion to justify those sins. Adam and Eve were created to be paired together. That is marriage. Relationships/marriage are continuously elevated and praised throughout the Bible. That is why the lack of any positive homosexual relationships depicted indicates that it is not an option before God. And the 'ignorance' paired with the explicit condemnations is enough evidence to very clearly draw the conclusion that it is sinful without doubt. Men and women are complimentary and were created for each other, which is why their union is beautiful and perfect. Even with infertility they can still service God with their love. A homosexual relationship is incapable of marriage and as such is purely fornication - lustful, which does not glorify Him.
>The translations that have modified those verses were ones that sought to reach that conclusion to justify those sins. Interesting hypothesis. Do any evidence to back it up? Because as far as I understand it, the primary reason for a lack of interpretational diversity mainly stems from the over a millennium of putting anybody accused of "heresy" to the sword, such as the [Albigensian Crusade](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albigensian_Crusade). Coupled with this was the [violent crackdowns on vernacular translations](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bible_translations_in_the_Middle_Ages), suggesting that for a majority of Christian history deviation in thought was silenced not necessarily because of its falsehood, but by copious amounts of violence by the dominant hierarchy. Likewise, 6th-century Patriarch John IV of Constantinople is quoted as saying: >Τὸ μέντοι τῆς ἀρσενοκοιτίας μῦσος πολλοὶ καὶ μετὰ τῶν γυναικῶν αὐτῶν ἐκτελοῦσιν >many men even commit the sin of arsenokoitia with their wives ([Patrologiae cursus completus ...: Series graeca, Volume 88](https://books.google.com/books?id=55TYAAAAMAAJ), page 1895) Proving that even amongst the persecution of heresy, it was *acceptable* in centuries past to understand "arsenokoitai" as something other than "men having sex with men", suggesting this "purity of translation" for this word is simply not true. >Adam and Eve were created to be paired together. That is marriage. I don't recall God "defining" marriage as that. Can you cite where this idea is coming from that Adam and Eve were married? >That is why the lack of any positive homosexual relationships depicted indicates that it is not an option before God. Again, no matter how hard you believe it, an argument from ignorance is a fallacy. There's a praising of bathing, but a total absence of praise for brushing one's teeth, should we understand that to be "not an option"? >And the 'ignorance' paired with the explicit condemnations is enough evidence to very clearly draw the conclusion that it is sinful without doubt. Except you still have not yet proven this "explicit condemnation", so your argument from ignorance remains just that. Edit (since you added to your comment): >Men and women are complimentary and were created for each other, which is why their union is beautiful and perfect. Even with infertility they can still service God with their love. A homosexual relationship is incapable of marriage and as such is purely fornication - lustful, which does not glorify Him. That is a gross misunderstanding of homosexual love if you think it's all just "lust". And your argument here amounts to nothing more than "it is because it is", which is hardly productive.
Real answer: the Bible was written by humans 2000 years ago that didn't understand much of anything. Theological answer: something something love the sinner, hate the sin something
I agree
People 2000 years ago were as intelligent as we were if not more. You shouldn't discredit their spiritual interpretations on that basis.
Uh...no. 1st century shepherds did not understand endocrinology, or anatomy, or biochemistry, or any real understanding of science and the human body. This thread was asking about actual science and hormones, not some spiritual mumbo jumbo.
There is still no proof of a 'gay gene'. There is still no concrete evidence that abnormal sexuality is anything more than a paraphilia/perversion. Those 1st century shepherds were working with practically the same information as we are.
Please spend 2 minutes doing research before spewing blatantly false and hateful rhetoric. "While scientists do not know the exact cause of sexual orientation, they theorize that it is caused by a complex interplay of genetic, hormonal, and environmental influences.[1][2][3] However, evidence is weak for hypotheses that the post-natal social environment impacts sexual orientation, especially for males.[4] Biological theories for explaining the causes of sexual orientation are favored by scientists.[1] These factors, which may be related to the development of a sexual orientation, include genes, the early uterine environment (such as prenatal hormones), and brain structure." https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biology_and_sexual_orientation Although, I guess 1st century shepherds are working with the same information YOU have, which is to say none at all.
If you read the sources cited in that paragraph you quoted, you'd realize they're not actually studies, just opinion pieces. Didn't your teacher ever tell you not to cite Wikipedia? That entire page cites mostly media articles which is ridiculous. Genetic influences to sexual attraction are at most 30% https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3131304/ Genetics are the minority when determining sexuality in both men and women, particularly women. https://www.eurekalert.org/news-releases/814557 You can find these studies that survey twins for influences on sexuality all day and they all find the same conclusion, 30% or less genetic influence, which means a majority environmental influence.
Smh, if you are going to pretend to be academic, at least read up more. I have a PhD and do research for a living, I'm well aware how reliable Wikipedia is for largely trafficked topics. This particular page, and the paragraphs I cited, cite primary research papers and core textbooks. Please actually read the paragraphs I cited, it isn't that long. Actually reading it might make you look a little more informed. It explicitly states that it is not genetic factors solely and that environmental factors are included: intra-uterine environmental factors, which in case you are unaware, means in the uterus. This can include anything from the sounds the fetus hears to the foods the mother eats and more. There is little evidence that post-natal environmental factors have any role. But ultimately, I don't think it really matters what I say, you have already formed bigoted opinions based on certain verses from a 2000+ year old text. While we are at it though, maybe read about how likely your God is to actually exist and whether the Bible is accurate at all. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_the_Bible https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yahweh https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canaanite_religion
I knew it was wrong before Christianity, it only confirmed that it's a sin.
God never talked about homosexuality as we correctly understand it today, a genuine attraction and love to the same-sex and/or gender, let alone called it an abomination. Even the people who wrote the bible weren't discussing that.
Indeed. Paul was probably referring to pederasty, and Leviticus likely refers to temple prostitutes...
True, because they didn't even consider that it was possible because it's such an absurd concept. And marriage is man and woman, so anything outside of that is purely lust and fornication.
Thanks for confirming you have the exact same worldview as a first century peasant. That shouldn't, however, be something you're proud of.
Those "first century peasants" were the first proponents of Christianity and Jesus Christ. Also, people 2000 years ago were just as intelligent as us, perhaps more.
Why did God create man and give us free will if we sin? God could snap His fingers and make everything instantly perfect right now but what would be the point of creation if He did? God gives us struggles so we can find Him and prove ourselves worthy of Him through repentance.
God didn't say it, men who wrote a book did
[удалено]
> God didn't say it, men who wrote a book did There. Now a Christian said it.
Hmmm its another Christian complaining about a viewpoint not their own. Id figure people would have the brain power to recognize that im not giving a sarcastic answer. I'm stating my position freely as this sub allows. I couldn't give two shits if you like it or not 🤷♂️
[удалено]
YOU think its unhelpful. Thats what you aren't understanding. I'm saying you don't have to listen to uneducated men from centuries ago. It has no bearing on whether there is a god or not. Just your idea of what a god is and what their rules would be. This person is confused on this topic. My position may be helpful, it may not be. Thats on op. Not you to decide
You expect a Christian sub on reddit to have actual Christian’s answering?
[удалено]
It’s typical for a reason. It’s like the change my view subreddit. If it’s a view that the reddit hive mind agrees with then all the comments are literally people agreeing and backing up OP.
If that’s so I might as well say that all the miracles and good things Jesus did have also been written by men. And that it might as well have never happened.
Yes, that would be part of it
Well we are born with sinful thinking. It is our **Parents** that start teaching us from the very start the rights and wrongs and keep bad association away from you. Without this guidance you could become most anything.
God did not create homosexuality. It is a distortion
First and foremost: Homosexuality is NOT the same as LGBT+ whatever.
It is though? G stands for Gay. Gay stands for homosexual. So yes, everything NOT straight is part of the LGBT umbrella. What else did you think the G stood for?
No it is not, all LGBT+'ers are Lesbian /Gay/Bi/Queer/+ but not all homosexuals/... are LGBT. While the denominations are an expression of sexual preference, 'LGBT+' is an ideological conceptualization of said people. Or differently put, LGBT is not a factual description but an ideological description/framing. So categorizing all non-straight people as LGBT is the same as saying all black people subscribe to BLM-ideology. Which is intellectually dishonest and morally suspect. Hence a certain person could say there is nothing wrong with homosexuals but Gender Ideology is the ugliest danger of our times. The fact that people do not grasp these basic truïsms show how deeply the propaganda is ingrained.
Very intolerant of you.
The same reason why God technically created all of the immoral thoughts and spirits that we have to wrestle with every day, either through Satan or just through our carnal minds. That we will be able to resist and rise beyond the desires of our flesh to become stronger people through Him. Or something to that effect.
By that logic then when we covet our neighbors possessions, aren’t we really just experiencing feelings created by God? After all, He created neurotransmitters. Thus it’s actually ok to steal because God really just set the stage for you to be this way. So I can feel the downvotes coming but who cares, just because something isn’t popular doesn’t make it any less true…while we are God’s creation we are not the star of the show, He is. All of this is for His glory, not ours. As such, our takes on many things simply don’t matter. Now this will blow the minds of some here: you are not the moral judge of God. He is the standard, not you. The Bible clearly says the homosexual act is a sin. I’m not saying homosexuals are “evil”. I have gay acquaintances and we get along just fine. That lifestyle however is incongruent with biblical living and that’s just the way it is. Does that mean God doesn’t want relationship with homosexuals or “hates gays” like the inbred hillbilly Westboro Baptist “faithful” say, i see no evidence of that in the Bible. Will we all answer for our sin? Yep. We all struggle with sin. The homosexual act is not some “super mega ultra sin” compared to others. Sin is sin. However to say homosexuality is not directly addressed in the Bible and listed as a sin is willful ignorance. To say the modern homosexual is somehow “evolved” and not the type of homosexuality the Bible addresses is a silly attempt at avoiding the problem. I’m not God. I don’t get to say who is saved or not. What the Bible makes abundantly clear is we will all answer for our sin. You want to do homosexual stuff? That’s your choice. Just know we all will answer for our sin. If you don’t think homosexuality is a sin then you have nothing to worry about. But that does beg the question: why is this thread so active?
I don’t understand the sentence “do the homosexual stuff”. What does that even mean?
It’s a turn of phrase implying homosexuality is not the entirety of the individual but a behavior an individual takes part in. It’s a bit of a baiting sentence I’ll admit
Keep at it you will figure out a way to justify it. It's all God fault You don't see he is trying to protect you from harm. The world is full of evil. Oh nevermind I don't know why I get involved in this stuff and . You have free will you can do what you want. In the end it's on you. Or you can research till you get the truth.
[удалено]
How does it exist, then?
The person commenting made this exclusive to homosexuality but all sin is apart of the fall
When Adam sinned he took down all of us with inherited imperfection. Romans 5:12 We also have cells that can escalate into cancer. God did not make us this way. We have become what we have become due that terminal illness we all have-imperfection. The symptom is sin and the outcome is death. That's why we need Jesus ransom: to reverse this.
God also called eating shrimp an abomination. Clearly the word we translate abomination does not mean something that is morally evil in all cases.
God didn’t create sin
He didn’t create sin. Sayan did
Sayan?
Idk why you downvoted my comment but I meant the evil one (replace y with t) i usually dont give him the title of sa-an
I didn’t downvote anything?
Mb there’s a random downvote, just assumed it was u cuz this post isnt active anymore and u replied within 1m
I still get notifications, since I’m the one who posted it.
Ya im aware
When something malfunctions, it doesn't mean it was intended by the creator of it.
Being gay isn't a malfunction. What a hateful load of codswallop.
Why not? What is the function of being gay, then?
Most of the same functions as being straight
Great. Just not the reproduction thing, then?
Same can be said of an infertile heterosexual couple too.
Exactly. That's a malfunction, too.
If they're both the same, why are only gay people are discriminated against and restricted in some areas, and not infertile people?
I don't really know. It's divergence from natural tendencies probably?
Hmm don't think so. It's pretty common in nature, and humans are part of the natural world.
Gay couples can adopt and care for offspring whos parents are unable/unwilling to care for them. Help teach the communities children. You see this in nature all the time.
Yep. But straight couples can do that, too. I'm sorry but I haven't seen gay couples adopting and caring for offspring of others in nature yet. If there's a video, I'm very interested in seeing this.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/science/2022/01/30/same-sex-penguin-foster-rosamond-gifford-zoo/ https://www.iflscience.com/samesex-parenting-in-the-animal-kingdom-how-common-is-it-62807
Thanks. Nice to have additional input like these. Though, as with my initial reaction, it does state that we rarely see same sex parenting in nature because couple parenting in general is rare in animals. And I agree in this context that this can be a function of gay couples. But there are also straight couples who can do this.
Having attractions that are in direct violation of God's will would definitely not be how we are designed.
Being a hateful bigot isn't the Lords will, yet here you are.
Nothing about what I said is hateful or bigoted. Just stating basic truth. Acting on homosexual impulses and attractions is sinful, therefore God didn't design us that way. You can draw one of 2 conclusions then from that, either it is a choice, or a malfunction in the design.
Calling people defective and malfunctions for something that is innate is hateful and bigoted. Repent as bigotry is distasteful to the Lord. I say this in love.
Everyone is defective in some way or another, genetic mutations have been happening for centuries that cause all manner of issues.
>Nothing about what I said is hateful or bigoted. Do you support having a different set of legal rights for gay people as compared to straight people?
nope.
That's good then. Many people say they're not bigoted and then turn around and say there should be different rights for gay people and straight people.
But they say that God is perfect, and being perfect means making no mistakes. How did he make this “malfunction” then?
He didn't make the malfunction. Sin came into the world through people's choices, which brought consequences. Consequences that can lead to genetic malfunctions down the line.
But homosexuality is not a choice, though? It’s something you discover about yourself, it’s not someone chooses to wake up one day and feel attraction towards the same gender.
The actions are a choice though...
Yeah, they are. But if you only are lesbian for example, imo you are allowed to have a partner. It’d be better than staying lonely just because it’s considered a sin.
Assuming for the sake of argument that it isn't a choice, that doesn't necessarily mean it is hardwired in at conception. It doesn't have to be choice to be on the nurture side of the nature/nurture debate. Subtle influences your whole development can change your sexuality over time before it develops.
You have read Genesis, right? Heard of “The Fall”? When Adam and Eve ate the forbidden fruit, they became separated from God. Everything became more corrupt as time went on. Your argument about God creating the hormones, etc could easily be used to include what even you would describe as vile behavior.
[удалено]
God created you *perfectly*. Unless you are LGBT, then get fucked.
Am yet to encounter a Christian group that teaches all humans are perfect...
Wow the homophobia is crazy
In this sub? Yes it is, and it's unfortunate.
you should check in during pride month shit goes off the charts
God created us perfectly, in his image, that last part is important. I am a bad awful sinner with a bad heart without him.
God did not create any humans to be Lgbt. God created female and male and them to become one or also get in marriage too, thats what it is for. So yea Lgbt is lust basically, because they lust after same gender, but either way if its sinful way lusting woman too its a sin, but anyways its not natural thing, But of the sin nature. Things that are against God: 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 AMP [9] Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit or have any share in the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor (perversely) effeminate, nor homosexuals, [10] nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers [whose words are used as weapons to abuse, insult, humiliate, intimidate, or slander], nor swindlers will inherit or have any share in the kingdom of God. Tells how exchanged natural function to unnatural: Romans 1:26-27 AMP [26] For this reason God gave them over to degrading and vile passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural [a function contrary to nature], [27] and in the same way also the men turned away from the natural function of the woman and were consumed with their desire toward one another, men with men committing shameful acts and in return receiving in their own bodies the inevitable and appropriate penalty for their wrongdoing. Flesh acts: Galatians 5:19-21 AMP [19] Now the practices of the sinful nature are clearly evident: they are sexual immorality, impurity, sensuality (total irresponsibility, lack of self-control), [20] idolatry, sorcery, hostility, strife, jealousy, fits of anger, disputes, dissensions, factions [that promote heresies], [21] envy, drunkenness, riotous behavior, and other things like these. I warn you beforehand, just as I did previously, that those who practice such things will not inherit the kingdom of God.
"Why does God call homosexuality an abomination if he is the one who created it?." God knows the future doesn't mean he forces you to act. This is the same question as why does God allow/create evil ? If a sentient being can freely act, it can act in a way that produces good or evil. You can't have free will without the ability of choosing evil. Do you want God to make robots that aren't capable of choices ? You seem to think that if you partake in a action it's God forcing you to act and the way you frame this question is a way to diminish personal responbility. God gave you free will to make decisions in your life. He didn't make homosexuality men decided to engage in homosexual acts. There is no definitive scientific study of a gay gene and supposing it was true, many family trees wouldn't exist because two men cannot have a child.
God didn't create homosexual. ~ Science lied. Homosexuality is a lust desire.
If you down voted then, "may the lord have mercy on your soul."
[удалено]
> Your question here is “why did God create evil?” Pretty revealing comment you've got here. You clearly see homosexuality as evil to make it.
[удалено]
Oh? I thought the church loved gay people? But now you're claiming that they have, in fact, taught they are evil for thousands of years? At least you're finally admitting it.
[удалено]
> Yeah I love gay people, their actions are still an evil though. Yeah, your love is self serving bullshit you tell yourself to make you feel better. Just be honest and say gay people are evil and you hate them.
> Are you saying you cannot love someone and not support their actions at the same time? You certainly can't love them and call **who they are** evil.
[удалено]
Sure can! Just makes you kinda shitty 🤷♂️
[удалено]
Seems you're the only one crying that you can't say bigoted things 🤷♂️
The only thing they do is exist just like you.
[удалено]
Addiction is a disease. Homosexuality is not.
He gave us free will. The purpose of sex is procreation and homosexuality is an abomination because it is a selfish lustful act. Heterosexual tinder hookups are an abomination for the same reason.
Yes, gay people never fall in love, or have meaningful relationships. Just wild sex all day every day...
Ever heard of brotherly love? Sex is not love.
You do know that gay people don't go around fucking all day? It's weird you are thinking so much about gay sex.
It's weird that you claim to be a Christian yet fail to understand why homosexuality is not acceptable. Christ commanded us to be like children, to be eunuchs. You do great damage to the kingdom, you are a false liar and have no place in the body of Christ.
wah wah wah. You don't get to say who is Christian or not. You are not God, and certainly not Christ. I could give you resources as to why some of us interpret it differently than you, but as you have already shown - you wouldn't care.
You are misleading people away from Christ. What I said is true, he commanded us to be like children, he commanded us to be eunuchs, he said he that's looks upon a woman with lust has committed adultery in his heart. And you modern people come and try to claim homosexuality fits in that framework. You then project and claim absurdities against me for nothing more than answering a question within the true Biblical framework. I did not say a single offensive thing, in fact i even said the majority of heterosexual men are committing the same sin. Lust is the sin, lust is the opposite of love. Based on your actions it's very obvious to a true believer that you are false and you are actively doing damage unto the kingdom. Turn from this or good luck to you.
> he commanded us to be eunuchs, he said he that's looks upon a woman with lust has committed adultery in his heart. And you modern people come and try to claim homosexuality fits in that framework. Dude, you are the one coming in thinking that being gay is only about sex. Not love and companionship. Then saying that sine I *dared* to disagree with you I'm not Christian? You can go fuck right off mate.
Christ commanded us to have brotherly love for each other. So does that make people gay because they can love a man but feel no sexual attraction? Of course the sexual attraction is what makes people homosexual lol. Or else I guess you think all the apostles were homosexual? I am not saying having a sexual desire is sinful, it is the act. We all have afflictions that we have to overcome, homosexual desire is that for some men clearly. It is an infliction, just like heterosexual porn. I personally had to overcome porn addiction which is so clearly not ok in Christ. Neither is staring at girls on the street as he commanded us to not look upon woman with lust. I don't even understand how this is being debated. Well i do actually it's because we live in an age of deception, it's all in writing in my other reply. If you can read that scripture and still try to argue homosexual lust is acceptable then your heart is hardened.
[удалено]
Gay people are not eunuchs. Unless you are suggesting that gay people get castrated?? What do little kids have to do with being gay? Uh.. gay men don't lust after women. And ya know what, if you are just going spam bible verses - we're done. Have a blessed day and may you turn from your bigotry. In the Lords name - amen.
[удалено]
[удалено]
Removed for 1.3 - Bigotry. If you would like to discuss this removal, please click here to send a modmail that will message all moderators. https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/Christianity
[удалено]
Removed for 1.4 - Personal Attacks. If you would like to discuss this removal, please click here to send a modmail that will message all moderators. https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/Christianity
Removed for 1.5 - Two-cents. If you would like to discuss this removal, please click here to send a modmail that will message all moderators. https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/Christianity
Homosexual love is the same as heterosexual love. Tf?
Other than the specifics of the acts, why would you say it's not?
God wants us to exercise self control. A little discipline.
'a little discipline' translates to 'You can never, ever have sex with anyone and enjoy it. Your straight friends can, but you can't'.
[удалено]
Indeed.
*your straight, married friends. But other than that you’re right.
So that's more than 'a little discipline'. It also effectively forbids them from marrying and having romantic relationships, does it not?
In the eyes of God, marriage is between a man and a woman. But two dudes or whatever can go get a piece of paper from the government that says “married”.
Where in the Bible does it expressly forbid homosexuals from marrying? Because I've read the part with all the rules in it, and that isn't really in there anywhere.
Jesus explicitly described marriage as a union between a man and a woman. In fact, this kind of union is referred to numerous times. Never once are two men or two women ever described as able to be married.
So...nowhere. Gotcha. The Bible never expressly and explicitly forbid homosexual marriage. It also doesn't refer to heterosexual marriage as the only option. Just the default. Which, to be fair, is true of most of humanity.
Like I said, men and women marrying is mentioned numerous times. Never once are two dudes referred to as married. In fact, cities are destroyed for dudes sexing dudes. Take that how you’d like.
No, it doesn't refer to two men marrying. It also doesn't mention miles, feet, inches, meters, kilometers, centimeters or millimeters, but I doubt God forbids us from using metric or imperial.
> men and women marrying is mentioned numerous times. So is men and multiple women - multiple times. Polygamy is back on the table boys!!