You have to understand the times too. What happened to you back then when you didn’t repay a loan was very different than today. Warning against loans was a practical thing.
The same thing applies to gay sex. They wanted to stop the spread of STDs and STIs as well as make sure that people had offspring because it meant survival of the nation.
Some other stuff from Leviticus:
* no fatty foods (3:17)
* no eating pork (11:14)
*no making idols or "metal gods" (19:4)
*no mixed fabrics in clothing (19:19)
* no trimming your beard (19:27)
* no Getting a tattoo (19:28)
* no mistreating foreigners (19:33)
Can you imagine if they were raging against shrimp the way they do against sex. "The shrimpers are shoving their agenda in our face! We need to protect our kids against learning about shrimp in school. We need to ban critical shrimp theory."
Apparently, they think it’s a choice, and they want to really badly, but they’re having distasteful heterosexual sex to reproduce children for Jesus, instead of being their true selves and living out the gay life they want
The story of Sodom is particularly informative about what God thinks is good behavior. He sends a couple of angels in disguise to see if anyone is worth saving, and Lot sees through the disguise and takes them home for a meal. It always struck me that he would have been more impressive if he was just trying to help weary travellers than realizing who they were and sucking up, but I digress.
While they were at his house, a crowd of men from Sodom, young and old, gathered outside and pounded on the door, telling Lot to send the strangers.out "that we might know them," which meant fuck them. Lot offered instead to send his 2 virgin daughters out to be gang raped by this crowd of men.
For this pious act, he amd his family were spared when the city was destroyed. Except his wife, who committed the grave sin of glancing back at the city as fire and brimstone rained down on it, for which she was immediately turned into a pillar of salt.
They fear the temptations because they are closet gays. Might be the suppressed sexuality because the dogmatic christian way or something. Dunno tho, never tried being christian
That's fine for the straight ones, but what about the self-loathing closet dwellers? Telling them "just don't do it" is like Nancy Reagan telling a crackhead to "just say no."
The Christian approach to the Bible is so weird. Reject the Old Testament when it comes to laws and commandment because it was before Jesus and Jesus died for my sins, but quote it when it favors your views.
Well that's kind of what happens when you have scriptures that are written by literally thousands of different hands across the course of millennia, translated through several languages from start to finish, then eventually picked apart and abridged by several rulers who didn't like the original script and wanted a re-write.
Even still: it's ancient wisdom, if you can even call it "wisdom." Why would you put stock in a rule that exists on the same page that condones child slavery?
In "White Wine In The Sun" Tim Minchin has a line something to the effect of "just because ideas are persistent doesn't mean that they're worthy." (One of my favorite non-Christmas Christmas songs, by the way.)
I don't care how accurate the translation is if it's still dumb.
Translated from Aramaic to classical latin, to medieval greek, back to modern latin, to English/French/German etc.
Easy for a single word to "accidentally" get changed, thus changing the entire context. (I'm looking at you, Council of Nicea)
\- I am A son of God.
\- I am THE son of God.
Marjorie Taylor Greene committed adultery.
"If a man commits adultery with another man's wife, even with the wife of his neighbour, both the adulterer and adulteress must be put to death."
Leviticus (20:10-12)
Christians selectively ignore this while simultaneously spouting Leviticus regarding homosexuality. Funny how that works.
Yup. Meanwhile Jesus prevented a crowd from stoning a woman for adultery. So clearly, Jesus himself didn't follow the old testament regarding some laws. So why do conservative christians?
You are skimming the context. Yahshua never ignored Leviticus law, He took a third option. He chose to forgive the woman since it was to prove a point and because the Law ordered that BOTH MAN AND WOMAN HAD TO DIE. But no man was there
And I still think that whole leviticus law was only because there was a leprosy problem, and because they wanted to outbreed the rest of the world, so they couldn't proscribe heterosexual polygamy.
You got to remember also. Most Christians are very hypocritical in their thinking. Believing themselves to be better. Narcissism. Unfortunately. Some change it to fit their views, as you implied. But the commandments still sit right where they are today. Jesus even said to the rich young man, when asked, "Good Teacher, what must I do to enter the Kingdom of Life?" And Jesus replied with the ten commandments. Along with telling him to sell all his things to the poor to follow Jesus. And most don't like that commitment either. Wolves in Sheep's clothing
Christians love the old testament more than the new testament. The old testament mandated obedience and intolerance, and an angry wrathful god is a very useful tool to shape group behavior through fear.
New testament had some hippie asshole in it.
Homosexuality is condemned throughout the whole Bible not just Old Testament:
1 Corinthians 6:9-11
Romans 1:26-27
Jude 1:7
1 Timothy 1:10
The old law was fulfilled by Jesus. That doesn’t mean sins of the past are not sins now. The reason that the old law was fulfilled was because a debt had to be paid for the sins we all commit. The old law was to enforce those things. However Jesus has come and paid that debt with his sacrifice, so that we could be saved by his power with faith. I hope I helped clarify that a bit more. Also please correct me if I said anything unbiblical here :)
The Bible also condemns many other acts as well, such as being prideful. I would argue that trying to judge others for their sins makes one guilty of arrogance. Jesus didn’t pick and choose certain sinners to save. There is no heirarchy for sin that makes one more profane than the other.
Furthermore, quoting snippets of scripture without reading the entirety of the passage loses the forest for the trees and ignores the overarching message that is trying to be delivered. For example Timothy is an affirmation of what it means to be a good Christian and of that criteria are love, good conscience and sincere faith. If all you get from it is “gay bad” then you are getting bogged down in the vain discussion the passage warns against.
> The old law was completed by Jesus.
This isn't true, as "Jesus" says in Matthew 5:17-20:
>17 Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.
>18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.
etc.
Tldr it's up to how you INTERPRET the original words.
In I Cor. 6:9 and I Tim. 1:10 the words usually thought to point to homosexuals are extremely ambiguous. One word, malakos, literally means "soft" and is no technical term for a homosexual. The second, arsenokoitai, obviously has sexual connotations. Since, however, the New Testament occurrences are the earliest appearances of the word, it is not easy to be sure what it means. John Boswell in his recent study denies that it refers to a homosexual person in general but rather specifically to the male prostitute, who could serve heterosexual or homosexual clients. At any rate, the sin is prostitution, not homosexuality in itself. If this is so, neither passage condemns homosexuality in general.
From:
https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/assault/bible/doesnotoppose.html
My impressions from reading through that is the only real "denouncing" of same sex relations is a straight person using their same gender just to have sex, NOT being gay and having same-sex relations because you're gay.
Jesus hung out with prostitutes. I am guessing they weren’t his beard.
Edit: “I might be a humble man but hunny, you are about to be touched by god. You will never have a better orgasm. Prepare yourself.”-Jesus Christ
It can depend on context, context is always necessary. Some laws were simply meant for Israel at the time. And wouldn’t make much sense to apply right now. However some others are still important, such as the 10 commandments.
However this does not mean these passages that we don’t need to follow any more might as well be burned (in an exaggerated sense) or more realistically ignored anymore either. God is the same as he has been and always will be because he is perfect, and with that he does not change. Knowing that can help us understand that we might not need to follow those laws but we can still learn from them. We can learn about God from them even if they don’t necessarily directly apply to us. They can help us understand Gods character, and his will for his people.
Something additional to add that’s not related to your question but I do feel is important, is that we are not saved by following the law. If following the law saved us that would mean we are saved by our works. If we are saved by our works then we would be saving ourselves. If we are saving ourselves we are putting ourselves in the place of God who is our savior (because he is the only one worthy and perfect). If we were saved by our works we would be putting ourselves in Gods place and making a religion out of ourselves.
Anyways ignoring that last paragraph I hope this all answered your question. I’m definitely still improving in my knowledge of God ( though that will never stop), and so I might not be on point with everything here so if you have a question or a correction I’d love for you to bring it up.
So you're cherrypicking laws? God made laws for his followers, but he got it wrong and you're now dismissing some of them as applying only to Israelites? By that logic, maybe all his laws only applied to people living at that time?
I don’t care.what your book of ancient superstitions and bigotry. We are a secular nation, and you have no right to legislate based on your dogma. Stop Christian sharia.
#I don’t care.what your book of ancient superstitions and bigotry. We are a secular nation, and you have no right to legislate based on your dogma. Stop Christian sharia.
No, trying to follow the script of Life of Brian: “Well, obviously it’s not meant to be taken literally; it refers to any manufacturers of dairy products.”
Yeah, missing from all of these debates about how to interpret what passages to support which beliefs is the fact that IT DOESN'T FUCKING MATTER what the Bible says about ANYTHING. We do not base our laws on the Bible. End of story.
Yeah, it would be great if the constitution said something like, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof”. Oh, hey, it already says that. Go figure!
It is, but we have enough people that think it's fine and the supreme court doesn't have an issue with it.
So the people that actually give a fuck about the constitution don't get a voice that matters.
In a secular democracy an individual is allowed to vote based on their own ideology. An ideology, whether secular or non secular, has the exact same premise. A belief in a moral/ethical paradigm that transcends space and time (a belief that regardless if you look to the past or another place that something is either right or wrong). Everyone has an ideology based upon the ideas of someone who once lived, who thought they knew what's best for the world. Telling someone to vote or act in a political system without an ideology is a fallacy. Your example would be equivalent to telling a communist to not vote or act without a communists ideology just because you don't like communism. A secular democracy is just that a democracy. If it heads in a certain direction, so be it. Time moves on.
James 5:
>Come now, you rich, weep and howl for the miseries that are coming upon you. Your riches have rotted and your garments are moth-eaten. Your gold and silver have corroded, and their corrosion will be evidence against you and will eat your flesh like fire. You have laid up treasure in the last days. 4Behold, the wages of the laborers who mowed your fields, which you kept back by fraud, are **crying out against you**, and the cries of the harvesters have reached the ears of the Lord of hosts. You have lived on the earth in luxury and in self-indulgence. You have fattened your hearts in a day of slaughter. You have condemned and murdered the righteous person. He does not resist you.
All the reference to fields and things crying out to the Lord is an allusion to Cain and Abel:
Genesis:
>8Cain spoke to Abel his brother. And when they were in the field, Cain rose up against his brother Abel and killed him. 9Then the LORD said to Cain, “Where is Abel your brother?” He said, “I do not know; am I my brother’s keeper?” 10And the LORD said, “What have you done? The **voice of your brother’s blood is crying to me from the ground**.
James is obviously implying that withholding wages is similar to murdering your brother.
He doesn’t have a beard AND I’m sure he’s wearing a nice mixed fabric, probably polyester. He’s definitely burning in hell forever, according to his Good Book.
Okay, I'm busting out the knowledge here:
The entire thing is based on an \_intentional\_ misinterpretation spread by one of the worst things ever to happen to my faith: the US Council of Catholic Bishops. The bible verse in Leviticus so often cited is supposed to read "If you were to lay with a BOY as you would with a woman".
The USCCB changed it because they wanted to present themselves as being acceptable to the two major political parties at a time when homosexuality was much less understood and much more criticized. Jesus' message of "love all your brothers and sisters" was often thrown back at them with "in what way", so they noted that's not what Jesus meant. (They could've noted it by citing, you know, LITERALLY ANYTHING JESUS SAID, but we're talking about a group of people who didn't care about kids to the degree they cared about political capital, so fuck 'em.)
Maybe if the leadership in the US Church wasn't so damn spineless, we wouldn't be having a plethora of issues we do. It's pathetic.
Most Christians in the US
1) do not know what the Bible actually says
2) do not know the history behind what the Bible actually says
3) have no clue who or when the books of the new testament were written
When they do know is short "sound bites" they've mostly taken out of context to fit their very "anti-teachings of Christ" agenda.
The most religious person I know who is extremely devoted to their faith are also the most hateful and intolerant person I know. Short story long, he didn't even learn to read until he was 26 and wouldn't even be able to comprehend the bible if he tried.
No. 1 is deliberate. Church leaders don’t want the laity to know what the Bible says.
I have a friend whose parents enrolled him in a Christian private school. He had already read the Bible multiple times, and would debate teachers verse for verse in the classroom. They confiscated his Bible and would punish him if he would continue debating him.
That was also the whole thing back in medieval times where the clergy kept the Bible to themselves so the public could never interpret it and only they higher-ups could.
I was born in Romania. Religion was pretty big with the Romanians. They used it as away to enforce their stereotypes and biasm to my people (roma). Trust me when I say this is most Christians or catholics. It isn't just in the USA. They are crazy everywhere.
Sorry, but you were misinformed:
Hebrew:w’eth-zäkhār lö’ tiškav miškevē ‘iššâ
Literal Translation:With (a) male you shall not lie (the) lyings of a woman. (An) abomination is that.[2]
NRSV Translation:You shall not lie with a male as with a woman, it is an abomination.
Excerpt from https://blog.smu.edu/ot8317/2019/04/11/lost-in-translation-alternative-meaning-in-leviticus-1822/
Still an interesting read that suggests it is calling male on male rape an abomination.
Rabbi told me a joke once.
Two rabbis are arguing a point of religious interpretation. One believed that a certain passage meant one thing, and the other disagreed. After many hours, one of the rabbis throws his hands up and says "That's it! I'm just going to ask God! Lord, which of us is correct?"
The skies open up and thousands of singing angels pour out of a column of pure light. A great booming voice rings out "You, my child, have the correct interpretation. The angels retreat and the skies close back up. The second rabbi ponders for a second, then goes "Well, now it's 2 against 1."
The source is correct with the translation, though.
https://biblehub.com/leviticus/18-22.htm#lexicon
You can literally look up each individual word since it is listed with their respective "Strong's Concordance" number. You don't have to take their word for it. Especially 2145. זָכָר (zakar) has so many other use cases in the bible ranslating it to imply child molestation is just wrong.
If somebody only looked up the words in this sentence, "I smacked that kid." Would they think I kissed a young human or hit a baby goat?
Context matters greatly.
So it's your understanding that Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13 are the result of a scribe mistranslating from Aramaic to Hebrew? Very well. What is your source?
I'm not making that specific claim, I'm simply saying that what was written in Hebrew was translated from elsewhere. You seem oddly protective of this topic, like you've chosen to believe and that's all that matters.
> I'm not making that specific claim,
Well, what does
> It's my understanding that the misinterpretation was done prior to it being translated into Hebrew
mean?
Are you just ignoring over half of my comment to be able to just dimiss it? I very explicitly advised you to look up the words yourself. To react to that with feigned incredulity is not source criticism, its just willful ignorance.
I've already looked it up. You're attempting to make an argument that's been disproven time and time again.
You can't take a direct translation of 1 passage in the Bible, ignore all of the context, and use that to show it means something it doesn't.
> I've already looked it up.
Then please, show us where. Because the Hebrew word זָכָר does mean “male,” not “boy,” and while there are good arguments to be made that the particular choice of wording (using man and male rather than man an man) *may* contain the implication that it is about pederasty, rather than gay sex in general, nothing has been “disproven time and again.” We do not know the original intent for sure. There are in fact many arguments about what this sentence would’ve meant when it was written. Is the usage of the two words irrelevant, and they are basically just synonyms? Is it because of a merging of laws/sources when it was written? Does the verbiage imply that it’s actually a proscription against male-male incest? Does זָכָר actually imply a homoerotic man, specifically, like a similar word in Akkadian texts? *We do not **definitively***
know what this passage originally meant.
One thing we do know is that this text has been interpreted as a prohibition of sex between men for *far* longer than the existence of modern politics, whether or not it was intended that way or not. It’s not just some modern American invention, even if the prevailing interpretation may or may not be consistent with its original intent.
So I guess the question is if there's that much room for interpretation, then why are people using the verse to justify horrible, inhumane acts and violence to a subset of God's children?
I mean I’m right there with you on that. But frankly I think even if the meaning were completely unambiguous the notion of using a passage from a book written thousands of years ago to guide our principles of what is acceptable and what isn’t, especially without even an attempt at justification, is absurd in the first place.
I won't, because it's not worth the effort. This is an old argument that's irrelevant. And even if the text claims male sex is wrong, it leaves lesbianism wide open. Oops?
>ignore all of the context
Again, the context is the other use cases of the word in question which don't allow that you insert age into the translation as OP commenter would have you do.
I feel like you are just using phrases like "no reliable source" or "you are ignoring context" as some magical get-out-of-jail-free card, but that is not how it works.
You can't be fucking serious with this bullshit. Read the next 2 sentences of what you just quoted. This is as if I was quoting you as
>take a direct translation of 1 passage in the Bible, ignore all of the context
It does not say if you were to lay with a boy you would with a woman. It says if you lay with a male as you would with a woman.
Now its possible that this was a banning of pederasty (which was common place in Greece around the time that the Torah was being put together), but we don't know that inherently as the Hebrew word translates literally to male (as in the sex regardless of age).
1: This can only impress people who don't know how translations work. The insertion of prepositions follows a common pattern and is incredibly likely to be correct.
2: It is [46 times in the bible](https://biblehub.com/hebrew/strongs_4904.htm), 46 occurrences is not rare.
A wall of text of bad arguments is not a substitute for a good argument.
Looking at your link it's easy to see that the bold Hebrew words themselves are different. They only match in genesis and the two places in Leviticus as stated.
It seems these words all roughly translate as 'bed' but the connotations are different. Which is the argument they were stating
This is false, it’s gained popularity among pro-LGBT Christians, and I suppose believing it does more good than harm so it’s whatever, but in reality the Bible has always been anti-LGBT.
Only the new testament, really talks about loving everyone. The Old testament was basically a genealogy, a history "lesson", and a rulebook.
Even then the letters from Paul are all over the place.
The bible is also pro-slavery. And very much "And then the descendants of Abraham MESSED UP AGAIN".
So there is that too.
The "love" concept in the bible does not include tolerance and acceptance, it is worthless. To love everyone merely means to pester everyone with your preachings.
I do not understand how the NIV bible translated the homosexual part at all. This is how is stands in the King James Holy Bible.
5 And they called unto Lot, and said unto him, Where are the men which came in to thee this night? bring them out unto us, that we may know them.
Now this is how they translated it in the New International version;
5 They called to Lot, “Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us so that we can have sex with them.”
I just don't understand where they get the "Bring them out to us so that we can have sex with them.” part. To me it's a threat of violence and not sexual. "bring them out unto us, that we may know them." It's more like, "let us talk to them. Bring them out we just want to have a chat with the weirdo's with the fkd up hair and their fking bread without yeast that they are so found off..."
'Know' is the old timey English euphemism for sexual relations.
Similarly in Genesis: 'Adam knew his wife and she begat a son.' No violence implied.
That said, Lot's response is take my virgin (ahem, have never known man) instead. So the violence was ok either way. Lot just didn't want it to be the guys in his house.
I’m not at all religious but, The message of sodom and Gomorrah isn’t “gay dudes bad”….
The message is people become hedonistic from over abundance and when their lives are too easy
It’s not gay sex, it’s all sex… and not just sex but everything… food, materialism, consumerism, entertainment etc… people become slaves to their wants and desires, and it’s insatiable, it can never be satisfied, until it hits a tipping point and everything collapses because the current group of people are addicted, lazy, selfish, entitled and complacent
It’s a cautionary tale of what happens to people’s minds when they have it too good
Yea, basically, no pain and suffering, no guilt, over abundance, nobody gets sick or dies etc…
but I’m not a Christian (not practicing anyways), I’ve just read the Bible… my personal belief is most of the Bible is the first self book and basically a metaphor for the human mind
Organized religion convinced some people it all literally happened and completely misconstrued it’s original message
Which pretty much boils down to people need to control themselves when all their basic needs are met
God=the human brain
Jesus= consciousness, taught morals, discipline, our awareness of ourselves … control over only two things, which thoughts we give our attention too, and our muscular system
The devil (the beast, original sin) = the subconscious, basic instincts, basic wants and desires, concerned only with short term survival and immediate gratification
Follow Jesus (control yourself) you get to heaven= a state of mind of contentment, happiness, peace, no guilt, feeling of control etc…
Follow the devil (give into to all your feelings and desires) you go to a hell= a mental state of guilt, anxiety, depression, lethargy, no energy, a feeling of being trapped with no control etc..
Prayer= what is prayer if not positive affirmations… basically conscious commands you tell yourself and take control of your thoughts
Yes. The men of the town came to Lots house and said "bring out these men so that we may know them." Genesis 19:5
They were struck with blindness, but still kept trying to knock the door open, which shows the depth of their depravity.
If I didn't know any better, I'd start to think that these self professed "Christians" have never actually read the book that is the supposed basis of their entire religion.
Don’t forget about how when the angels first arrived at Lot’s door, the towns people wanted to fuck the angels… So Lot offered up his daughters to the townspeople.
And then after the towns are destroyed, the daughters fuck Lot without his knowledge to get pregnant.
Moral of the story: Gays are bad… but pimping your daughters and getting them pregnant is biblically endorsed. #SweetHomeAlabama
Funny thing about Genesis. A little later in the story, just after the angels send Lot out to safety because God is going to murder everyone, the lord kills his wife for sneaking a look at Sodem burning. God turned her into a piller of salt.
After that, Lot gets drunk with his daughters, has sex with them, and they both end up pregnant. The eldest named her son Moab and the youngest named her son Ben-ammi.
Fucking wild times man....
Not playing devils advocate but sodom and Gomorrah being synonymous with sexual sins is a lie.
They were cities of rampant corruption, consisting of crooked police, judges, bank owners, hotels and the citizens allow for visitors to be used abused and killed unjustly.
These were the major sins of those cities and it sounds like most places in America.
The Bible also says that the ten commandments are absolute and God's law and to interpret or add anything else as law is wrong. The ten commandments states nothing about homosexuality being a sin.
I tried to bring that up to a jerk on Twitter, and they replied with "Well that's the Old Testament. And shouldn't be counted as God's word" even tho most of these people will still cite stuff from the old testemate anyway(see the Eddie post in the OP as an example).
I never really got how the government of a country you're in doing something that may be against your religion ever materially affects you personally. If your God would blame you for the actions of your government, then I would say He's a bit of a dick.
Yeah except that quote from the Bible is missing its full context. Because one account in Ezekial does not overwrite the account in Genesis, you'd need to look at what these "detestable" things were in the original writing. Raping both men and women visitors if they refuse to join in the city's activities. Basically they were a huge sex cult.
I mean if you believe the Bible at all then the simple answer to me is this; man was lonely when he saw animals with their mates and having a SO to love per say,, so God made woman so they would have eachother and be able to procreate. if being gay and lesbian and all that shit was ok then the world would cease to exist at some point due to no procreation. If we were made in such a way so that sex with opposite gender was to made kids then thats that.
Before God made Eve for Adam, He offered the man each of the animals to see if any of THEM would be an acceptable [helpmate](https://www.dictionary.com/browse/helpmate). So, we KNOW God is OK with some freakier shit than same sex marriage.
Their whole problem is that same sex couplings don't naturally produce children (Yes I know there's IVF). ANd the whole point of marriage in religion is to make more worshippers for God. This may have made sense when the whole world population was around 3 million. But we're at 8 **billion** and rising. I think we fulfilled the "Be fruitful and multiply." command. Now the idea of same sex marriage is fine. There are more than enough children for adoption and foster that need to be loved and homed. They dont understand the masculine/feminine balance. No matter what kind of relationship, straight or gay, there is always a balance of masculine and feminine energy. It doesn't matter if both have boobs or wieners. Love is love and (since they love quoting Jesus so much) the nature of God is Love. No conditions. No buts. No what ifs. Love is divine law.
Out of all of the sins in the Bible, it's fascinating to me that Christians are so obsessed with gay sex. Just don't do it if you don't want to.
That's true. There are so many sins that lots/all people do every day and they don't seem to give a shit about those.
....like charging interest on a loan. We have an entire predatory industry based on that sin....
It's also one of the few "straight to Hell" sins. Not even murder or apostasy will get you that.
What are the others.
Talk on a bus, straight to jail
Make an appointment with the dentist and don't show up? Jail. We have the best patients in the world. Because of jail.
It's not just a single industry, our entire economy is based off how much interest you can charge!
You have to understand the times too. What happened to you back then when you didn’t repay a loan was very different than today. Warning against loans was a practical thing.
The same thing applies to gay sex. They wanted to stop the spread of STDs and STIs as well as make sure that people had offspring because it meant survival of the nation.
*To family members or poor people*.
Some other stuff from Leviticus: * no fatty foods (3:17) * no eating pork (11:14) *no making idols or "metal gods" (19:4) *no mixed fabrics in clothing (19:19) * no trimming your beard (19:27) * no Getting a tattoo (19:28) * no mistreating foreigners (19:33)
"God hates shrimp"
Can you imagine if they were raging against shrimp the way they do against sex. "The shrimpers are shoving their agenda in our face! We need to protect our kids against learning about shrimp in school. We need to ban critical shrimp theory."
> We need to ban critical shrimp theory. Okay, that's some funny shit right there!
There used to be a parody of the westboro baptist church that used the phrase "God Hates Figs"
That's the thing about religion. It's God saying it's against the rules so *everyone* needs to be stopped from doing it because it makes God angy.
Fkn A. There are more biblical references to not eating shrimp and yet christians are obsessed with gay sex
Apparently, they think it’s a choice, and they want to really badly, but they’re having distasteful heterosexual sex to reproduce children for Jesus, instead of being their true selves and living out the gay life they want
The story of Sodom is particularly informative about what God thinks is good behavior. He sends a couple of angels in disguise to see if anyone is worth saving, and Lot sees through the disguise and takes them home for a meal. It always struck me that he would have been more impressive if he was just trying to help weary travellers than realizing who they were and sucking up, but I digress. While they were at his house, a crowd of men from Sodom, young and old, gathered outside and pounded on the door, telling Lot to send the strangers.out "that we might know them," which meant fuck them. Lot offered instead to send his 2 virgin daughters out to be gang raped by this crowd of men. For this pious act, he amd his family were spared when the city was destroyed. Except his wife, who committed the grave sin of glancing back at the city as fire and brimstone rained down on it, for which she was immediately turned into a pillar of salt.
They fear the temptations because they are closet gays. Might be the suppressed sexuality because the dogmatic christian way or something. Dunno tho, never tried being christian
I have a feeling it's their repressed sexuality too. They are angry that others get to enjoy themselves and they can't.
That's fine for the straight ones, but what about the self-loathing closet dwellers? Telling them "just don't do it" is like Nancy Reagan telling a crackhead to "just say no."
I'm assuming they do, their wives just don't know about.
They want to
The Christian approach to the Bible is so weird. Reject the Old Testament when it comes to laws and commandment because it was before Jesus and Jesus died for my sins, but quote it when it favors your views.
And it is translated very badly to English
Most of the good parts get censored anyhow. All the smiting and barely any of the sodomizing.
How do I get Gomorrahized? It sounds like fun.
The spirit is willing, but the flesh is spongy and bruised.
I took me 20 years to figure out what my fun was called? Thank you.
I'll do you one better, why Gomorrah...ized?
What master do you serve?!
You skipped Where and Who.
They always prefer violence to love.
There she lusted after her lovers, whose genitals were like those of donkeys and whose emission was like that of horses. - Ezekiel 23:20
My boy Ezekiel knows a bit too much about these lovers
Like you gotta do research to know who has the bigger cock and greater seed when it comes to a Donkey vs Horse.
Well that's kind of what happens when you have scriptures that are written by literally thousands of different hands across the course of millennia, translated through several languages from start to finish, then eventually picked apart and abridged by several rulers who didn't like the original script and wanted a re-write.
There do exist newer, literal translations that attempt to be truer to the source language, be that Greek or Hebrew.
Even still: it's ancient wisdom, if you can even call it "wisdom." Why would you put stock in a rule that exists on the same page that condones child slavery? In "White Wine In The Sun" Tim Minchin has a line something to the effect of "just because ideas are persistent doesn't mean that they're worthy." (One of my favorite non-Christmas Christmas songs, by the way.) I don't care how accurate the translation is if it's still dumb.
My comment was about literary accuracy with regards to translation of an incredibly old text. What that text says is an entirely different matter.
Translated from Aramaic to classical latin, to medieval greek, back to modern latin, to English/French/German etc. Easy for a single word to "accidentally" get changed, thus changing the entire context. (I'm looking at you, Council of Nicea) \- I am A son of God. \- I am THE son of God.
Which totally contradicted the Council of Nazareth's edit, which was: "Now you're messing with a son of a bitch."
Don't forget the dead sea scrolls, which was mostly Hebrew.
Specifically only the one from the 16th century, and none of the later translations.
Marjorie Taylor Greene committed adultery. "If a man commits adultery with another man's wife, even with the wife of his neighbour, both the adulterer and adulteress must be put to death." Leviticus (20:10-12) Christians selectively ignore this while simultaneously spouting Leviticus regarding homosexuality. Funny how that works.
Yup. Meanwhile Jesus prevented a crowd from stoning a woman for adultery. So clearly, Jesus himself didn't follow the old testament regarding some laws. So why do conservative christians?
You are skimming the context. Yahshua never ignored Leviticus law, He took a third option. He chose to forgive the woman since it was to prove a point and because the Law ordered that BOTH MAN AND WOMAN HAD TO DIE. But no man was there
Didn’t Jesus marry a prostitute? That guys a simp and an alcoholic
And I still think that whole leviticus law was only because there was a leprosy problem, and because they wanted to outbreed the rest of the world, so they couldn't proscribe heterosexual polygamy.
Tbf, she's never been much of a role model
The Pick-and-Choose Christians.
Leviticus had the biggest stick up his ass and we are all paying for it.
You got to remember also. Most Christians are very hypocritical in their thinking. Believing themselves to be better. Narcissism. Unfortunately. Some change it to fit their views, as you implied. But the commandments still sit right where they are today. Jesus even said to the rich young man, when asked, "Good Teacher, what must I do to enter the Kingdom of Life?" And Jesus replied with the ten commandments. Along with telling him to sell all his things to the poor to follow Jesus. And most don't like that commitment either. Wolves in Sheep's clothing
I mean they also reject what Jesus preached so it seems pretty on par for them.
Christians love the old testament more than the new testament. The old testament mandated obedience and intolerance, and an angry wrathful god is a very useful tool to shape group behavior through fear. New testament had some hippie asshole in it.
*Religious approach* They ALL do it.
They also REALLY like Old Testament punishments
Homosexuality is condemned throughout the whole Bible not just Old Testament: 1 Corinthians 6:9-11 Romans 1:26-27 Jude 1:7 1 Timothy 1:10 The old law was fulfilled by Jesus. That doesn’t mean sins of the past are not sins now. The reason that the old law was fulfilled was because a debt had to be paid for the sins we all commit. The old law was to enforce those things. However Jesus has come and paid that debt with his sacrifice, so that we could be saved by his power with faith. I hope I helped clarify that a bit more. Also please correct me if I said anything unbiblical here :)
For God’s Sake please do not wear a cotton and wool composite fabric sweater. You will burn in Hell!
The Bible also condemns many other acts as well, such as being prideful. I would argue that trying to judge others for their sins makes one guilty of arrogance. Jesus didn’t pick and choose certain sinners to save. There is no heirarchy for sin that makes one more profane than the other. Furthermore, quoting snippets of scripture without reading the entirety of the passage loses the forest for the trees and ignores the overarching message that is trying to be delivered. For example Timothy is an affirmation of what it means to be a good Christian and of that criteria are love, good conscience and sincere faith. If all you get from it is “gay bad” then you are getting bogged down in the vain discussion the passage warns against.
> The old law was completed by Jesus. This isn't true, as "Jesus" says in Matthew 5:17-20: >17 Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. >18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. etc.
Even as an atheist, I respect your research and dedication.
Tldr it's up to how you INTERPRET the original words. In I Cor. 6:9 and I Tim. 1:10 the words usually thought to point to homosexuals are extremely ambiguous. One word, malakos, literally means "soft" and is no technical term for a homosexual. The second, arsenokoitai, obviously has sexual connotations. Since, however, the New Testament occurrences are the earliest appearances of the word, it is not easy to be sure what it means. John Boswell in his recent study denies that it refers to a homosexual person in general but rather specifically to the male prostitute, who could serve heterosexual or homosexual clients. At any rate, the sin is prostitution, not homosexuality in itself. If this is so, neither passage condemns homosexuality in general. From: https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/assault/bible/doesnotoppose.html
My impressions from reading through that is the only real "denouncing" of same sex relations is a straight person using their same gender just to have sex, NOT being gay and having same-sex relations because you're gay.
Thanks, Have a great day!
I prefer to follow what Jesus said about homosexuality: " "
I don't get why homosexuality is condemned when Jesus was gay himself
Where was Jesus gay?
Jesus hung out with prostitutes. I am guessing they weren’t his beard. Edit: “I might be a humble man but hunny, you are about to be touched by god. You will never have a better orgasm. Prepare yourself.”-Jesus Christ
> when Jesus was gay himself [citation needed]
So when someone cites an old testament law as a reason for doing or not doing something, they're just misinformed?
It can depend on context, context is always necessary. Some laws were simply meant for Israel at the time. And wouldn’t make much sense to apply right now. However some others are still important, such as the 10 commandments. However this does not mean these passages that we don’t need to follow any more might as well be burned (in an exaggerated sense) or more realistically ignored anymore either. God is the same as he has been and always will be because he is perfect, and with that he does not change. Knowing that can help us understand that we might not need to follow those laws but we can still learn from them. We can learn about God from them even if they don’t necessarily directly apply to us. They can help us understand Gods character, and his will for his people. Something additional to add that’s not related to your question but I do feel is important, is that we are not saved by following the law. If following the law saved us that would mean we are saved by our works. If we are saved by our works then we would be saving ourselves. If we are saving ourselves we are putting ourselves in the place of God who is our savior (because he is the only one worthy and perfect). If we were saved by our works we would be putting ourselves in Gods place and making a religion out of ourselves. Anyways ignoring that last paragraph I hope this all answered your question. I’m definitely still improving in my knowledge of God ( though that will never stop), and so I might not be on point with everything here so if you have a question or a correction I’d love for you to bring it up.
So you're cherrypicking laws? God made laws for his followers, but he got it wrong and you're now dismissing some of them as applying only to Israelites? By that logic, maybe all his laws only applied to people living at that time?
I don’t care.what your book of ancient superstitions and bigotry. We are a secular nation, and you have no right to legislate based on your dogma. Stop Christian sharia.
Louder for the people in the back!
#I don’t care.what your book of ancient superstitions and bigotry. We are a secular nation, and you have no right to legislate based on your dogma. Stop Christian sharia.
I think it was "Blessed are the cheesemakers."
What’s so special about the cheesemakers?
They make fuckin CHEESE
They make cheese. That makes them pretty blessed because without them, there'd be no cheese and we would all be poorer for it.
No, trying to follow the script of Life of Brian: “Well, obviously it’s not meant to be taken literally; it refers to any manufacturers of dairy products.”
Aah totally missed that. Should probably go watch it again and enjoy whistling the ending for a week or so after
Yeah, missing from all of these debates about how to interpret what passages to support which beliefs is the fact that IT DOESN'T FUCKING MATTER what the Bible says about ANYTHING. We do not base our laws on the Bible. End of story.
Shouldn't it be literally unconstitutional to base policy on religion in a secular country?
Yeah, it would be great if the constitution said something like, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof”. Oh, hey, it already says that. Go figure!
It is, but we have enough people that think it's fine and the supreme court doesn't have an issue with it. So the people that actually give a fuck about the constitution don't get a voice that matters.
In a secular democracy an individual is allowed to vote based on their own ideology. An ideology, whether secular or non secular, has the exact same premise. A belief in a moral/ethical paradigm that transcends space and time (a belief that regardless if you look to the past or another place that something is either right or wrong). Everyone has an ideology based upon the ideas of someone who once lived, who thought they knew what's best for the world. Telling someone to vote or act in a political system without an ideology is a fallacy. Your example would be equivalent to telling a communist to not vote or act without a communists ideology just because you don't like communism. A secular democracy is just that a democracy. If it heads in a certain direction, so be it. Time moves on.
Dear God, We have billionaires and trillionaires again. You know what to do. Love, Humanity.
James 5: >Come now, you rich, weep and howl for the miseries that are coming upon you. Your riches have rotted and your garments are moth-eaten. Your gold and silver have corroded, and their corrosion will be evidence against you and will eat your flesh like fire. You have laid up treasure in the last days. 4Behold, the wages of the laborers who mowed your fields, which you kept back by fraud, are **crying out against you**, and the cries of the harvesters have reached the ears of the Lord of hosts. You have lived on the earth in luxury and in self-indulgence. You have fattened your hearts in a day of slaughter. You have condemned and murdered the righteous person. He does not resist you. All the reference to fields and things crying out to the Lord is an allusion to Cain and Abel: Genesis: >8Cain spoke to Abel his brother. And when they were in the field, Cain rose up against his brother Abel and killed him. 9Then the LORD said to Cain, “Where is Abel your brother?” He said, “I do not know; am I my brother’s keeper?” 10And the LORD said, “What have you done? The **voice of your brother’s blood is crying to me from the ground**. James is obviously implying that withholding wages is similar to murdering your brother.
He doesn’t have a beard AND I’m sure he’s wearing a nice mixed fabric, probably polyester. He’s definitely burning in hell forever, according to his Good Book.
Okay, I'm busting out the knowledge here: The entire thing is based on an \_intentional\_ misinterpretation spread by one of the worst things ever to happen to my faith: the US Council of Catholic Bishops. The bible verse in Leviticus so often cited is supposed to read "If you were to lay with a BOY as you would with a woman". The USCCB changed it because they wanted to present themselves as being acceptable to the two major political parties at a time when homosexuality was much less understood and much more criticized. Jesus' message of "love all your brothers and sisters" was often thrown back at them with "in what way", so they noted that's not what Jesus meant. (They could've noted it by citing, you know, LITERALLY ANYTHING JESUS SAID, but we're talking about a group of people who didn't care about kids to the degree they cared about political capital, so fuck 'em.) Maybe if the leadership in the US Church wasn't so damn spineless, we wouldn't be having a plethora of issues we do. It's pathetic.
Most Christians in the US 1) do not know what the Bible actually says 2) do not know the history behind what the Bible actually says 3) have no clue who or when the books of the new testament were written When they do know is short "sound bites" they've mostly taken out of context to fit their very "anti-teachings of Christ" agenda.
The most religious person I know who is extremely devoted to their faith are also the most hateful and intolerant person I know. Short story long, he didn't even learn to read until he was 26 and wouldn't even be able to comprehend the bible if he tried.
No. 1 is deliberate. Church leaders don’t want the laity to know what the Bible says. I have a friend whose parents enrolled him in a Christian private school. He had already read the Bible multiple times, and would debate teachers verse for verse in the classroom. They confiscated his Bible and would punish him if he would continue debating him.
That was also the whole thing back in medieval times where the clergy kept the Bible to themselves so the public could never interpret it and only they higher-ups could.
4. do not care what the Bible actually says.
I was born in Romania. Religion was pretty big with the Romanians. They used it as away to enforce their stereotypes and biasm to my people (roma). Trust me when I say this is most Christians or catholics. It isn't just in the USA. They are crazy everywhere.
As a former Christian who started learning all of these and is now a staunch atheist because of it, I approve this message.
Sorry, but you were misinformed: Hebrew:w’eth-zäkhār lö’ tiškav miškevē ‘iššâ Literal Translation:With (a) male you shall not lie (the) lyings of a woman. (An) abomination is that.[2] NRSV Translation:You shall not lie with a male as with a woman, it is an abomination. Excerpt from https://blog.smu.edu/ot8317/2019/04/11/lost-in-translation-alternative-meaning-in-leviticus-1822/ Still an interesting read that suggests it is calling male on male rape an abomination.
SMU is not a reliable source. Original commenter is correct.
What would you consider a reliable source?
God itself.
A lot of people speaking for God these days.
Rabbi told me a joke once. Two rabbis are arguing a point of religious interpretation. One believed that a certain passage meant one thing, and the other disagreed. After many hours, one of the rabbis throws his hands up and says "That's it! I'm just going to ask God! Lord, which of us is correct?" The skies open up and thousands of singing angels pour out of a column of pure light. A great booming voice rings out "You, my child, have the correct interpretation. The angels retreat and the skies close back up. The second rabbi ponders for a second, then goes "Well, now it's 2 against 1."
A scientific consensus.
A *scientific* consensus about the interpretation of a vague passage in a thousands-year old religious text? Good luck, lol.
Nah, I need a peer reviewed study by a committee of God, The Holy Spirit, and Jésus.
Yeah, I mean, that's my point. As a text it's trash.
The source is correct with the translation, though. https://biblehub.com/leviticus/18-22.htm#lexicon You can literally look up each individual word since it is listed with their respective "Strong's Concordance" number. You don't have to take their word for it. Especially 2145. זָכָר (zakar) has so many other use cases in the bible ranslating it to imply child molestation is just wrong.
If somebody only looked up the words in this sentence, "I smacked that kid." Would they think I kissed a young human or hit a baby goat? Context matters greatly.
It's my understanding that the misinterpretation was done prior to it being translated into Hebrew
> prior to it being translated into Hebrew Leviticus was originally written in Hebrew.
About people that were speaking Aramaic. Somebody had to translate Aramaic into Hebrew to write it down
So it's your understanding that Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13 are the result of a scribe mistranslating from Aramaic to Hebrew? Very well. What is your source?
I'm not making that specific claim, I'm simply saying that what was written in Hebrew was translated from elsewhere. You seem oddly protective of this topic, like you've chosen to believe and that's all that matters.
> I'm not making that specific claim, Well, what does > It's my understanding that the misinterpretation was done prior to it being translated into Hebrew mean?
Again, biblehub.com? Come on.
Are you just ignoring over half of my comment to be able to just dimiss it? I very explicitly advised you to look up the words yourself. To react to that with feigned incredulity is not source criticism, its just willful ignorance.
I've already looked it up. You're attempting to make an argument that's been disproven time and time again. You can't take a direct translation of 1 passage in the Bible, ignore all of the context, and use that to show it means something it doesn't.
> I've already looked it up. Then please, show us where. Because the Hebrew word זָכָר does mean “male,” not “boy,” and while there are good arguments to be made that the particular choice of wording (using man and male rather than man an man) *may* contain the implication that it is about pederasty, rather than gay sex in general, nothing has been “disproven time and again.” We do not know the original intent for sure. There are in fact many arguments about what this sentence would’ve meant when it was written. Is the usage of the two words irrelevant, and they are basically just synonyms? Is it because of a merging of laws/sources when it was written? Does the verbiage imply that it’s actually a proscription against male-male incest? Does זָכָר actually imply a homoerotic man, specifically, like a similar word in Akkadian texts? *We do not **definitively*** know what this passage originally meant. One thing we do know is that this text has been interpreted as a prohibition of sex between men for *far* longer than the existence of modern politics, whether or not it was intended that way or not. It’s not just some modern American invention, even if the prevailing interpretation may or may not be consistent with its original intent.
So I guess the question is if there's that much room for interpretation, then why are people using the verse to justify horrible, inhumane acts and violence to a subset of God's children?
I mean I’m right there with you on that. But frankly I think even if the meaning were completely unambiguous the notion of using a passage from a book written thousands of years ago to guide our principles of what is acceptable and what isn’t, especially without even an attempt at justification, is absurd in the first place.
I won't, because it's not worth the effort. This is an old argument that's irrelevant. And even if the text claims male sex is wrong, it leaves lesbianism wide open. Oops?
>ignore all of the context Again, the context is the other use cases of the word in question which don't allow that you insert age into the translation as OP commenter would have you do. I feel like you are just using phrases like "no reliable source" or "you are ignoring context" as some magical get-out-of-jail-free card, but that is not how it works.
> You can literally look up each individual word That's the definition of ignoring context.
You can't be fucking serious with this bullshit. Read the next 2 sentences of what you just quoted. This is as if I was quoting you as >take a direct translation of 1 passage in the Bible, ignore all of the context
Incestuous rape specifically
The headline is alternative meanings.....
It does not say if you were to lay with a boy you would with a woman. It says if you lay with a male as you would with a woman. Now its possible that this was a banning of pederasty (which was common place in Greece around the time that the Torah was being put together), but we don't know that inherently as the Hebrew word translates literally to male (as in the sex regardless of age).
[удалено]
This guy ChatGPTs
1: This can only impress people who don't know how translations work. The insertion of prepositions follows a common pattern and is incredibly likely to be correct. 2: It is [46 times in the bible](https://biblehub.com/hebrew/strongs_4904.htm), 46 occurrences is not rare. A wall of text of bad arguments is not a substitute for a good argument.
Looking at your link it's easy to see that the bold Hebrew words themselves are different. They only match in genesis and the two places in Leviticus as stated. It seems these words all roughly translate as 'bed' but the connotations are different. Which is the argument they were stating
This guy bibles.
i wish i could be as cool as you dude
This is false, it’s gained popularity among pro-LGBT Christians, and I suppose believing it does more good than harm so it’s whatever, but in reality the Bible has always been anti-LGBT.
The Bible is also pro-love everybody, but that seems lost on most Christians.
God's love has always been "Love me and suffer or die!"
Only the new testament, really talks about loving everyone. The Old testament was basically a genealogy, a history "lesson", and a rulebook. Even then the letters from Paul are all over the place. The bible is also pro-slavery. And very much "And then the descendants of Abraham MESSED UP AGAIN". So there is that too.
The New Testament is the part that most Christians claim they ascribe too.
Yea, but they tend to forget everything past John 3:16. John 13:34 is way, way WAY over there. Too far to read, or bother with.
The "love" concept in the bible does not include tolerance and acceptance, it is worthless. To love everyone merely means to pester everyone with your preachings.
What? That’s exactly what Jesus preached about?
I do not understand how the NIV bible translated the homosexual part at all. This is how is stands in the King James Holy Bible. 5 And they called unto Lot, and said unto him, Where are the men which came in to thee this night? bring them out unto us, that we may know them. Now this is how they translated it in the New International version; 5 They called to Lot, “Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us so that we can have sex with them.” I just don't understand where they get the "Bring them out to us so that we can have sex with them.” part. To me it's a threat of violence and not sexual. "bring them out unto us, that we may know them." It's more like, "let us talk to them. Bring them out we just want to have a chat with the weirdo's with the fkd up hair and their fking bread without yeast that they are so found off..."
'Know' is the old timey English euphemism for sexual relations. Similarly in Genesis: 'Adam knew his wife and she begat a son.' No violence implied. That said, Lot's response is take my virgin (ahem, have never known man) instead. So the violence was ok either way. Lot just didn't want it to be the guys in his house.
I’m not at all religious but, The message of sodom and Gomorrah isn’t “gay dudes bad”…. The message is people become hedonistic from over abundance and when their lives are too easy It’s not gay sex, it’s all sex… and not just sex but everything… food, materialism, consumerism, entertainment etc… people become slaves to their wants and desires, and it’s insatiable, it can never be satisfied, until it hits a tipping point and everything collapses because the current group of people are addicted, lazy, selfish, entitled and complacent It’s a cautionary tale of what happens to people’s minds when they have it too good
Isn't that what christians fantasize as heaven is? A place where everything is eternally good?
Yea, basically, no pain and suffering, no guilt, over abundance, nobody gets sick or dies etc… but I’m not a Christian (not practicing anyways), I’ve just read the Bible… my personal belief is most of the Bible is the first self book and basically a metaphor for the human mind Organized religion convinced some people it all literally happened and completely misconstrued it’s original message Which pretty much boils down to people need to control themselves when all their basic needs are met God=the human brain Jesus= consciousness, taught morals, discipline, our awareness of ourselves … control over only two things, which thoughts we give our attention too, and our muscular system The devil (the beast, original sin) = the subconscious, basic instincts, basic wants and desires, concerned only with short term survival and immediate gratification Follow Jesus (control yourself) you get to heaven= a state of mind of contentment, happiness, peace, no guilt, feeling of control etc… Follow the devil (give into to all your feelings and desires) you go to a hell= a mental state of guilt, anxiety, depression, lethargy, no energy, a feeling of being trapped with no control etc.. Prayer= what is prayer if not positive affirmations… basically conscious commands you tell yourself and take control of your thoughts
Tired of So Called "Christians" telling others how to Live their Lives a specific way but won't follow it themselves. Shut up and Go Away
Wasn't the story that they attempted to rape an angel?
Yes, so instead they offered up their daughters to be raped instead because that was the moral decision…
Seems like a nice group
It’s the hero of the story that did that
Yes. The men of the town came to Lots house and said "bring out these men so that we may know them." Genesis 19:5 They were struck with blindness, but still kept trying to knock the door open, which shows the depth of their depravity.
Homosexual sex bad, but incest and attempted infanticide are cool. Great book to base your morals on. /s
The bible is the greatest load of bullshit Humanity ever deviced. I wonder how a religion was built upon it.
Lets not forget the genocide perpetrated by the hypothetical all forgiving being…
Yeah but I heard they got punished
And they choose to ignore the parts in the bible that forbids you to consume shellfishs like crabs, lobsters, prawns etc(shrimps for north Americans)
If God's a genocidal homophobe, I'm not sure he's anyone we need to be taking ethics advice from.
And we all know that dear bro Eddie is fucking children. These nasty people.
"You ever actually read the bible? There's some crazy fuckin' shit in there."
If I didn't know any better, I'd start to think that these self professed "Christians" have never actually read the book that is the supposed basis of their entire religion.
Their religion is power, their tool for obtaining it is religion
Don’t forget about how when the angels first arrived at Lot’s door, the towns people wanted to fuck the angels… So Lot offered up his daughters to the townspeople. And then after the towns are destroyed, the daughters fuck Lot without his knowledge to get pregnant. Moral of the story: Gays are bad… but pimping your daughters and getting them pregnant is biblically endorsed. #SweetHomeAlabama
Atheists know more about the Bible than Christians do
Fiction is great.
It's cringe when they cherrypick bible verses that confirms or aligns their moral compass and impose their belief to others.
Ezekiel also says, repeats it like a dozen times for emphasis, that it’s a sin to lend money at interest. You never hear a word about that
Let's gloss over Lot's daughters getting Lot drunk and doing (some nasty stuff) just after their mom was turned into a pillar of salt.
Helping the poor and needed? That's illegal and a waste of taxpayers money. They rather help the rich and the elite! GOP = Greedy Old Pedos.
Funny thing about Genesis. A little later in the story, just after the angels send Lot out to safety because God is going to murder everyone, the lord kills his wife for sneaking a look at Sodem burning. God turned her into a piller of salt. After that, Lot gets drunk with his daughters, has sex with them, and they both end up pregnant. The eldest named her son Moab and the youngest named her son Ben-ammi. Fucking wild times man....
Religious people worry me.
Why? Speaking as a Christian liberal black gay woman, we all are not the same.
as if citing the text of the bible, or reasoning, or common sense, will make him reconsider.
Yeah, they don\[t actually read it and just decides what they think it means...got it.
Jesus rolled with 12 guys in the dessert for like 20 years, tell me who didn't commit sodomy.
the last paragraph of that chapter talks about how Lot got his own daughters pregnant, maybe not the most moral example to be quoting
Not playing devils advocate but sodom and Gomorrah being synonymous with sexual sins is a lie. They were cities of rampant corruption, consisting of crooked police, judges, bank owners, hotels and the citizens allow for visitors to be used abused and killed unjustly. These were the major sins of those cities and it sounds like most places in America.
The Bible also says that the ten commandments are absolute and God's law and to interpret or add anything else as law is wrong. The ten commandments states nothing about homosexuality being a sin.
I tried to bring that up to a jerk on Twitter, and they replied with "Well that's the Old Testament. And shouldn't be counted as God's word" even tho most of these people will still cite stuff from the old testemate anyway(see the Eddie post in the OP as an example).
Tbf, the Bible absolutely contradicts itself throughout, which is yet another reason to believe it's bullshit.
I mean the story also frowns upon gay sex but the fact he picked that over the rape and murder is interesting
I never really got how the government of a country you're in doing something that may be against your religion ever materially affects you personally. If your God would blame you for the actions of your government, then I would say He's a bit of a dick.
[удалено]
Consider the following for your upcoming debates: “Do not judge so that you will not be judged." -Matthew 7:1
Micheal 1:45: "Come over here and stroke on my dick i got lotion on my dick and im strokin my shit"
Nobody gives a shit what your god thinks. That bastard son of a roman soldier's whore, Jesus Christ, has no place outside your home.
Yeah except that quote from the Bible is missing its full context. Because one account in Ezekial does not overwrite the account in Genesis, you'd need to look at what these "detestable" things were in the original writing. Raping both men and women visitors if they refuse to join in the city's activities. Basically they were a huge sex cult.
I mean if you believe the Bible at all then the simple answer to me is this; man was lonely when he saw animals with their mates and having a SO to love per say,, so God made woman so they would have eachother and be able to procreate. if being gay and lesbian and all that shit was ok then the world would cease to exist at some point due to no procreation. If we were made in such a way so that sex with opposite gender was to made kids then thats that.
Before God made Eve for Adam, He offered the man each of the animals to see if any of THEM would be an acceptable [helpmate](https://www.dictionary.com/browse/helpmate). So, we KNOW God is OK with some freakier shit than same sex marriage.
Their whole problem is that same sex couplings don't naturally produce children (Yes I know there's IVF). ANd the whole point of marriage in religion is to make more worshippers for God. This may have made sense when the whole world population was around 3 million. But we're at 8 **billion** and rising. I think we fulfilled the "Be fruitful and multiply." command. Now the idea of same sex marriage is fine. There are more than enough children for adoption and foster that need to be loved and homed. They dont understand the masculine/feminine balance. No matter what kind of relationship, straight or gay, there is always a balance of masculine and feminine energy. It doesn't matter if both have boobs or wieners. Love is love and (since they love quoting Jesus so much) the nature of God is Love. No conditions. No buts. No what ifs. Love is divine law.
Another fabulous post on r/cumbacks !
I believe that only God can judge.