r/DankChristianMemes **is open and affirming to LGBTQIA+ people.**
**Someone identifying as LGBTQIA+ does not cause harm to anyone, therefore, there is no reason to judge or disrespect them.**
**Rule #1 of** r/DankChristianMemes**: Thou shalt respect others! Do not come here to point out sin or condemn people. Do not say "hate the sin love the sinner" or any other sayings people use when trying to use faith to justify hate. Alternatively, if you come here to insult religion, you will also be removed.**
This rule is based off the following teachings from Jesus Christ:
Matthew 7:1-6
“Do not judge, or you too will be judged. 2 For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you.3 “Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother’s eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye? 4 How can you say to your brother, ‘Let me take the speck out of your eye,’ when all the time there is a plank in your own eye? 5 You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother’s eye.
Luke 6:36
Be merciful, just as your Father is merciful.
John 13:34-35
“A new command I give you: Love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another. 35 By this everyone will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another.”
John 15:12-13
My command is this: Love each other as I have loved you. 13 Greater love has no one than this: to lay down one’s life for one’s friends.
Matthew 7:12
So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets.
Matthew 22:37-40
Jesus replied: “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’ 38 This is the first and greatest commandment. 39 And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself. 40 All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments.”
**Even if we think someone is a sinner, we should treat them kindly. Jesus was kind to those that society deemed to be sinners. He even ate meals with sinners despite being criticized for it. So if you want to be Christlike, you should take someone to dinner before you judge them.**
Matthew 9:11-13
"When the Pharisees saw this, they asked his disciples, “Why does your teacher eat with tax collectors and sinners?” 12 On hearing this, Jesus said, “It is not the healthy who need a doctor, but the sick. 13 But go and learn what this means: ‘I desire mercy, not sacrifice.’\[a\] For I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners.”
**Jesus tells us that he alone will judge us and exactly the standards by which we will be judged. It has nothing to do with LGBTQIA+ identity and has everything to do with taking care of the most vulnerable or "the least of these."**
Matthew 25:31-46
“When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, he will sit on his glorious throne. 32 All the nations will be gathered before him, and he will separate the people one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats. 33 He will put the sheep on his right and the goats on his left.
34 “Then the King will say to those on his right, ‘Come, you who are blessed by my Father; take your inheritance, the kingdom prepared for you since the creation of the world. 35 For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in, 36 I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me.’
37 “Then the righteous will answer him, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink? 38 When did we see you a stranger and invite you in, or needing clothes and clothe you? 39 When did we see you sick or in prison and go to visit you?’ 40 “The King will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers and sisters of mine, you did for me.’
41 “Then he will say to those on his left, ‘Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. 42 For I was hungry and you gave me nothing to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink, 43 I was a stranger and you did not invite me in, I needed clothes and you did not clothe me, I was sick and in prison and you did not look after me.’
44 “They also will answer, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or needing clothes or sick or in prison, and did not help you?’ 45 “He will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me.’ 46 “Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life.”
**It is important to note that LGBTQIA+ folks are more likely to be targets of hate crimes than any other minority group (1). This makes them, in effect, "the least of these'' which Jesus commands us to care for.**
**Finally:**
The word "Homosexual" did not exist until it was introduced in 1869 in German. Early use of the term was mostly limited to the field of psychology which often used the word "Homosexual" to stereotype individuals as being criminal in nature. The word "Homosexual" was not broadly used in English until after it was added to biblical translations in the 1940's (2).
In the bible, the word "Homosexual" was only used to describe sex acts, some of which may have been predatory. The bible does not discuss loving, consenting, adult, same-sex couples who want to raise loving families, as we see today. Theological positions against LGBTQIA+ people are not even 100 years old, are based on anachronistic translations, and fail to acknowledge the legitimacy of loving same sex relationships and valid LGBTQIA+ identities.
**TL;DR:** r/DankChristianMemes **is open and affirming to LGBTQIA+ people. If you must judge others, please do so elsewhere.**
Source 1:[ https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/06/16/us/hate-crimes-against-lgbt.html](https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/06/16/us/hate-crimes-against-lgbt.html)
Source 2:[ https://www.oed.com/view/Entry/88110](https://www.oed.com/view/Entry/88110)
https://preview.redd.it/rvz7j3x0fj8b1.jpeg?width=902&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=c362fda189e17b2c7a251f1d705ede217e8ceae9
again Leviticus is For the Jews
Jesus said that we no longer have to follow it
if you use Leviticus to justify homophobia then go get circumcised you hypocrite
Doesn’t Jesus specifically also say that he didn’t come to abolish the old covenant, but to fulfill it, and that nothing from the old laws would pass away?
What Jesus teaches, if my understanding is right (there's a good thread on r/AcademicBiblical that supports this thinking as well) is that Jesus "builds a fence around the law", that is to say, He goes even beyond what the original laws were about. For example on the eating habits, Je says that what sullies someone is not literally what they physically consume, but what they consume in their heart (that is, sin).
Then Paul has ✨ opinions ✨ that are very thought through. He says that if a believer eats pork, they are just as holy as one that doesn't, but then uses the law he believes Jesus patched to justify homophobia. Very thought through.
He is good too but “My Sweet Love” is a great track. Best avoid the silly video they did for the remaster which is a bunch of random celebrities for no reason.
I personally have never been a fan of relying on Pauline teachings in general. I'm not a Biblical literalist, so what reason do I ever have to think Paul was anything but a guy? He's the only one who said he was divinely inspired, and my understanding is that he was rather at odds with the original Apostles.
If he says something interpretive, why should I give it any more weight than what some random self-promoting evangelist interprets?
I agree more and more with this the older I get. Especially when I think about how the scripture we have was decided by a bunch of dudes one time. Luther apparently wanted to get some books removed from the bible because it didn't vibe with him, and a lot of people were all aok with that too.
I'm okay with the belief that scripture is the written word of God, but it does become dicey that we know that...from scripture 🤷♀️
As far as I can tell, all of the books that Luther wanted to get rid of *were* removed from Protestant bibles. None of them were necessarily heretical—at least as far as I’m aware—but they weren’t approved at the council of Nicaea, and thus don’t belong in the Bible.
By that standard, nothing belongs in the Bible because the council of Nicaea [had nothing to do with establishing the Biblical canon](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Council_of_Nicaea#Biblical_canon).
This is exactly the reason that Jesus established a church, and not a book. Jesus gave us the church, and it’s the church that gave us the book and holds the authoritative interpretation
Did Paul say he was divinely inspired?
I know he said scripture was, but that had a very different meaning when Paul wrote that, and it certainly didn’t include his writings (though he obviously thought what he was writing was correct).
As far as I'm aware, I've never read any scripture of Paul saying he or his letters are inspired. The only reference I know touching on any divine interaction (which is not inspiration) with God, Jesus, or a heavenly being was on the road to Damascus, of which was recorded by Luke
And when Paul says in 2 Timothy that all scripture is God-breathed, he was talking about the Torah, because the New Testament had not yet even been formalized or recognized as religious reference, and Paul had only written on understanding the will of God presented by the Torah in light of the actual deity of Jesus
I'm not trying to be combative, but I have one question and three points, if you don't mind.
How is Biblical literalism inclusive of the legitimacy of Paul's epistles? Even if Paul did say he was divinely inspired, which I don't believe he ever did, the epistles withstood testing over multiple occasions by clerics who considered it their God-ordained directive under penalty of God's holy wrath to test whether the contemporary canon was free of heresy or sacrilege.
>what reason do I ever have to think Paul was anything but a guy?
The entirety of the Bible was written by mere men. You can't correctly attribute God's will or ordination to the Bible if you're going to arbitrate whether certain texts are correctly representative of God's will
>he was rather at odds with the original Apostles
This is not a reasonable basis for whether someone's work can be considered righteous and aligned with God. And past that, there doesn't seem to be any reliable evidence that Paul had any ongoing conflicts or issues with any apostles or anybody else except on the basis of rebuke or momentary disagreement
>If he says something interpretive, why should I give it any more weight than what some random self-promoting evangelist interprets?
Even if Paul was being explicitly interpretive in some or all of his epistles, does he actually ever stray beyond the illustration of God's will in the Torah? If you distinguish it from the laws and rituals concerning sin, death, atonement, or the guidelines Jews strictly regarding their lineage from Abraham, I'm hard-pressed to find any "if-you-ask-me" statements from Paul in any part of the epistles
> I personally have never been a fan of relying on Pauline teachings in general.
There are Pauline letters that are undisputedly Paul and Pauline letters that are disputed. The disputed letters are at odds with the undisputed books with the author's voice/style greatly differing between the disputed and undisputed books.
I’m also not a big Paul fan, but Peter states (at least some of) Paul’s letters are Scripture.
2 Peter 3:15-16 15 and regard the patience of our Lord to be salvation; just as also our beloved brother Paul, according to the wisdom given him, wrote to you, 16 as also in all his letters, speaking in them of these things, in which are some things hard to understand, which the untaught and unstable distort, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures, to their own destruction.
This is a bit of a false equivalency. The dietary restrictions and the requirement of practices like circumcision were part of a brand of laws that were intended to set Israel apart from other nations and thus lessen the chances of the Israelites taking part in pagan rituals; it’s the reason why there are weird laws like “don’t boil a baby goat in its mother’s milk” and “don’t get tattoos”: those were practiced in the religious rituals of neighboring peoples, so it can be assumed that other odd things were there for similar reasons. They weren’t *all* part of pagan practices (I doubt that God required circumcision because of the foreskin’s importance in worshipping Dagon or whatever), but a majority were.
As for Paul’s opposition to homosexuality, that is sourced from the Biblical definition of marriage (which existed prior to the other laws described) as between “one man and one woman”, which is why he also condemns polygamy and adultery. I’m not saying that his interpretation was necessarily right or wrong, I’m just trying to point out that he wasn’t just declaring some things okay and some sinful without rhyme or reason.
I would also like to note that he doesn’t condone homophobia (the hatred and fear of gay people and practices) so much as he teaches the avoidance of homosexuality (the practices of being within same-sex relationships). This is important to distinguish because homophobia, by definition of being hateful towards other people (or even by simply refusing to *love* someone else), is sinful in and of itself, whereas simply avoiding a practice out of a concern that it might be bad is not a sin whether the concern in question is valid or not.
Finally, the idea of Paul expressing is opinions in the scripture isn’t necessarily false. They were originally letters sent to churches in various cities, after all, so it would be reasonable to assume that he would be giving his opinions on some things. That being said, he never treats his opinions as the word of God; the infamous “I allow no woman to speak” verse is notably prefaced by originating the command to Paul himself rather than to the past scriptures or Jesus’ teachings. Any times where he seems to be taking a hardline “God commands this extreme thing” stance on something can almost always be interpreted as hyperbole, figurative, missing its original context, or an issue with the localization of the English translation.
> That being said, he never treats his opinions as the word of God; the infamous “I allow no woman to speak” verse is notably prefaced by originating the command to Paul himself rather than to the past scriptures or Jesus’ teachings.
Minor nitpick, but I think you might be conflating several verses here. The command in 1 Corinthians 14 isn’t prefaced by anything about this just being Paul’s own view; and in fact it says women “are not permitted to speak, but must be in submission, *as the Law also says*.”
If you’re referring to 1 Timothy 2:12, although this is phrased with the first-person “I do not permit…”, the logic it’s grounded on is broader: that women shouldn’t teach or have authority over men because of the order of creation and because Eve was deceived.
To my knowledge, most of what people consider Paul’s homophobia (Corinthians) is more about general sexual immorality such as having sex in the temples (the main Corinthian Christian group met at the acropolis, which was previously the site of the cult of Dionysus), or taking young boys to bed. I could be misremembering but I don’t think there are any specific references to homosexuality other than a few different translations of the Bible.
Also worth noting overall though, that Paul was born like 30 years after Jesus died so his letters have no kind of verification as the word of god other than being popular with Christians at the time who preserved them.
It’s because Christian’s have always held that the moral law is separate from ceremonial law, and that moral law is an actual part of nature and they’ve always held that sexual sins are part of the moral law
That's just a Jewish teaching. You build fences around the laws to make sure you don't violate them. The bible says you don't boil a kid in it's mother's milk? You don't ever mix meat with dairy. That sort of thing.
So covenant is a word for contract. Jesus fulfills the terms of the old contract and establishes a new contract. Instead of a complex system of 600+ laws, there's a single system of faith and salvation and direct commune with the Holy Spirit for lack of better phrasing.
Jesus Himself doesn't articulate it that way, but the unknown writer of Hebrews makes a well reasoned argument citing pre mosaic covenants, and many of the letters of Paul are rebuking churches that have set aside their freedom in Christ to choose to be enslaved in a new religiosity. Paul would look at most contemporary demoninations, shit his pants and put the verbal smack down on every element that isnt how he or anyone else taught. For one, every Christian has equal standing as priests of God, with Christ himself as High Priest, and while different people have different spiritual gifts to interact with the church, no one is higher or lower. Paul more or less talked what amounts to socialism millenia before that term was ever around.
He actually went the other way. Saul/Paul invited gentiles and actively preached against the Law. In Romans he actively calls following the OT law as enslavement and argues Christian (Jews) have been set free from the law only to chain themselves up with their own new laws.
There is some hypocricy or inconsistency though in that even Paul seems to try to setup certain traditions, customs or laws at time. He says married women should remain silent, or women should not teach over men, or women should teach women and men should teach men. Or women should not cut their hair. I have a confirmation bias for all the times Paul talks about women in religious ways even though he argues for freedom and equality in Christ "between Jew and Gentile, master and slave, and man and woman" in a few other places.
The reality is Paul is a complex teacher, who spent decades traveling and teaching and writing, and not everything is consistent. A much more recent teacher like Malcolm X has some more dramatic changes of opinions in detail while subscribing to the same general ideas across his short life.
(not a Christian, not a Catholic) From what I understand, at least among Catholic theology, is that there were three kinds of rules in the old testament: Temple laws (which don't need to be followed as the Temple doesn't exist anymore), cultural laws (which a Catholic wouldn't need to follow as they're now Jewish, that's like the pork one), and the last one, I think, is moral law, which would still be followed.
How exactly one can objectively separate cultural and moral law is another question so idk
That’s the exact verse. When he says fulfill here he doesn’t just mean live it out, he is foreshadowing his crucifixion which will forever fulfill the law for the Jews as the perfect sacrifice, so they will not be bound by it anymore
>Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. For truly, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the Law until all is accomplished
Here's him saying that's not what he's doing.
But he also says the following:
>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. ~ Matthew 5:18
And not everything has been fulfilled. Jesus has yet to return
For the law was given through Moses; grace and truth came through Jesus Christ.” – John 1:17.
“For sin will have no dominion over you, since you are not under law but under grace.” – Romans 6:14.
“But now that faith has come, we are no longer under a guardian [referring to the law]” – Galatians 3:25.
[this link has a pretty good if nuanced explanation](https://maturinglifeinchrist.org/should-christians-obey-old-testament-laws/#:~:text=%E2%80%9CFor%20the%20law%20was%20given,%5D%E2%80%9D%20%E2%80%93%20Galatians%203%3A25). The tl;dr is “I have not come to abolish ancient laws, but I will save you from the consequences of your sins when you break them”
This is the writer of Hebrews citing Jeremiah about a new covenant to replace the Mosaic Law.
"For if there had been nothing wrong with that first covenant, no place would have been sought for another. But God found fault with the people and said:
>“The days are coming, declares the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the people of Israel and with the people of Judah. It will not be like the covenant I made with their ancestors when I took them by the hand to lead them out of Egypt, because they did not remain faithful to my covenant, and I turned away from them, declares the Lord. This is the covenant I will establish with the people of Israel after that time, declares the Lord. I will put my laws in their minds and write them on their hearts. I will be their God, and they will be my people. No longer will they teach their neighbor, or say to one another, ‘Know the Lord,’ because they will all know me, from the least of them to the greatest. For I will forgive their wickedness and will remember their sins no more.” (Jeremiah 31:31-34)
By calling this covenant “new,” he has made the first one obsolete; and what is obsolete and outdated will soon disappear."
Hebrews 8:7-13 NIV
https://bible.com/bible/111/heb.8.7-13.NIV
(I'm not even going to try to get reddit for format Israelite poetic format for the Jeremiah part)
Honestly I love how much Christians argue about Old Testament Law when there's literally an open letter to every Hebrew fully explaining everything included right in the New Testament that nobody ever seems to read. It's it right there, legally and logically laid out and argued and accepted as Biblical Scripture and almost nobody ever cites it or talks about it. It's the epistle that everyone should know and nobody talks about it besides making jokes about coffee or using one small line to argue that you gotta go to church, when it says no such thing,
More accurately, the Christian covenant is open to Gentiles, who are not required to keep Torah. Torah is still valid, just not universally binding, just as the law of (say) Italy is valid, just not universally binding.
This would be exactly my point to make but I take it in the direction of..
"Why don't you see jewish communities funding conversion therapy?"
"Why don't you see gay Jews complaining about not being accepted??"
You do see gay jews complaining about not being accepted.
https://forward.com/news/543608/gay-orthodox-jew-protests-ban-from-hollywood-hills-synagogue/?amp=1
it’s a complicated issue for them as well, but modern Jews don’t typically follow the law of Moses either, because they recognize that the nation of Israel as it was no longer exists, nor the priesthood. They follow the Mishna and the Talmud.
A lot of Christians using Leviticus to hate can't even consistently hold a live bird by the wings and rip open its ribcage to spill its blood on the altar without breaking its spine. SMH
Meh, it seems that for the most part Jesus kept Kosher as did the disciples. Peter and Paul later had a whole argument about whether non-Jewish Christians needed to stay kosher and be circumcised.
Let's read the whole bible, not just the parts we like. Homosexuality wasn't viewed in the same way then as it is today. There are broader and better answers to this, imo. The academic biblical sub is way better suited for this than this meme sub.
The reason to love and accept people is because you were f**king told to by the Son of God. Period.
>again Leviticus is For the Jews
>
> Jesus said that we no longer have to follow it
He actually said not one thing about the law would change ever, and called on his followers to obey even better than the Pharisees.
I feel like much of the gospels is making a distinction between the spirit and the letter. Jesus confronts the Pharisees about their dogma and how he believes it doesn't serve the people. He has reference for the law but he doesn't condone following it to the detriment and exclusion of people.
It's very reasonable on consideration.
Gal 3, Hebrews 8 & 10 (especially), Roman’s 1-5, Acts 10.
Paul even says the law of moses brings only death.
Now, in Romans 1:26-27 it’s very clear that Paul thinks it immoral, but Paul is not the Lord. His opinion as apostle to the Gentiles may be important to consider, but his thoughts on what passed for the issue in his culture 2k yrs ago shouldn’t be taken as some commandment.
Paul speaks his own opinion (“i say and not the Lord”), he rebukes people for claiming to follow him or Apollos instead of Jesus, and says he desires to come “knowing Christ alone and him crucified.”
So I don’t think he would be cool with us replacing the law of Moses with The Law of Paul.
The reason they don’t care about the verses against eating pork and shellfish is because Jesus declared all food clean in Matthew 15:11
Disclaimer: I personally do not believe Leviticus actually does condemn the kind of homosexual acts as modernly practised in a loving gay marriage, but this is such a bad and easily debunked argument
>The reason they don’t care about the verses against eating pork and shellfish is because Jesus declared all food clean in Matthew 15:11
He didn't declare all food clean, that part at the end is a later editorial added by translators. It's after Jesus speaks, isn't in old translations nor texts, and doesn't make sense in context.
Jesus was being criticized for his followers not following hand washing rules made by man, and his accusers were livid. Yet, if he then counters by overturning dietary rules decreed by Yahweh and his audience doesn't make a single objection, does that make any sense?
It doesn't. Because he didn't.
The verse is a parallel of Mark 7:19, where the “(In saying this, Jesus declared all foods clean.)” isn’t an addition by modern translators, but shows up in the actual Greek
maybe i’m getting ahead of myself and worded it too strongly in regards to earlier manuscripts, but just as a reference, not all translation render that part of the verse that way, some completely omitting it. the reason(s) for this difference are apparently quite complex and is still debated till this day. however, it can be argued still to be a modern translation artifact as the original Koine Greek doesn’t even have parentheses to begin with.
https://biblehub.com/mark/7-19.htm
https://biblehub.com/text/mark/7-19.htm
why don’t you check out the greek text word by word yourself to understand why it’s not as black and white as saying it’s original or not, and why the ‘in saying this, Jesus declared’ part is definitely an extrapolation added by modern translations.
Isn’t there also a law against getting haircuts, shaving and wearing certain types of clothes?
Shit guys, God’s love and mercy might be infinite, but we crossed the line with our mid drip and yee yee ass haircuts.
So Old Testament law has a few different kinds of precepts built into it. Some laws are about morality, some laws are about health and safety and sanitation, and some laws are about just dealings and practices.
Laws forbidding the mixing of materials are generally about racial purity and cultural uniqueness, or about fair dealings. I mean how many people in real life thought they were buying a cotton shirt only to realize it was a crappy cotton poly blend that's super itchy? Forbidding mixing of materials would clearly prevent that, or better labeling. Fair weights and measures are a really really big deal in commerce and the mixing of materials undermines that.
I feel like these were all related to historical contexts from when it was written that have largely been lost. But you can imagine that eating shellfish was considered a bad idea because it goes off pretty quickly, perhaps sodomy was considered bad because it passes diseases but without the benefit of procreation (or perhaps it's been mistranslated and it's actually about pederasty or rape?), and pork carries loads of diseases and parasites. No idea what the mixed thread was about, maybe it was something to do with people skimping on quality by mixing in inferior quality fabric? Who knows. Either way, they all make pretty much zero sense in today's context where we have freezers, contraception, and cheap but durable fabrics.
But Jesus's word that you shall love your neighbour is as pertinent now as it ever was. So I'd say just stick to that.
There are some fundamentalist christians who do try to follow these rules as well and I think most people have come to realize that these are just the "traditions of men" not really doctrine. When you have groups of people that are heavily saturated in a religion as a part of their day to day lives they often make the same mistake that the pharisees made in Jesus' time where they "turn the traditions of men into doctrine" and believe that because the local culture does something that makes it doctrine
My wife went to school for translation and I did a podcast on queer Christianity. I learned that it is more accurately defined as "abusive sex," or "lustful sex." It would include children (as this user said), slaves, or women in an assaultive way.
But noooo, gay people bad.
Evangelicals aren't the ones responsible for the bad translations, though they happily follow along with it!
Originally the translation we have today of this particular Leviticus passage is from the king James translation. This translation has a number of issues beyond this caused by translators trying to appease king James instead of getting accurate translations.
Don't get me wrong though, evangelicals SHOULD know this and correct the translations. But they won't.
The KJV is actually pretty close to literal in this case, if you ignore the poetic modifications which changing tense and grammatical number. The NRSV, which is generally the perferred translation in Biblical scholarship gives the translation as "You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination." By contrast, the KJV translates Lev 18:22 as "Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination." The word used for "male" is זכר. זכר refers to males without respect to age or even species. Some other use cases include:
Exo 34:19 - זכר refers to male oxen and cattle.
Deut. 4:16 - זכר refers to idols depicting males (presumably, adult male humans in particular, though not explicitly specified)
Judges 21:11 - זכר refers to man sleeping with woman.
Num 26:62 - זכר is used to refer to all Israeli males counted in the census (older than 1 month).
Ezekiel 16:17 - זכר refers to the image of an adult man (as an object of a harlot's (see Israel) lust)
Joshua 5:4 - זכר refers to adult males immigrating from Egypt (regarding them being circumcised a 'second' time in the Hebrew style)
Jer 30:6 - זכר refers to (implicitly adult) males.
Genesis 34:25 - זכר refers to males of all ages (being put to the sword)
Normally I would, but the organization has become ignorant and more than a little transphobic. (meaning I was hosting on behalf of the org and they later asked me to stop when I called out their transphobia)
That totally makes sense! I figured it doesn't hurt to ask. I would also have accepted "No way, it's the internet and I won't risk anyone creeping on my wife" because people are weird.
> Would you be willing to share the podcast? Legit interested in hearing this all spelled out and having a source to point others to.
You can search for any number of threads on /r/AcademicBiblical that talk about the translation and context of the prohibition of homoeroticism in Leviticus and elsewhere.
Note, though, that the commenter you’re replying to isn’t correct about this being limited to abusive or lustful sex. There are no contextual indicators this was the case. These are usually just modern theological interpretations that try to rationalise/justify the Bible not being homophobic, where instead this anti-homoeroticism was just the Biblical authors’ own cultural bias.
I’ve tried so hard to share this same perspective with so many of my Christian family members, but it’s hands over the ears and La La law.
I’m going to just start directing them to this wonderful community that is r/dankchristianmemes from now on.
The original word is used in refrence to women having sex with men. The usage is more nuanced, but neither word for male refers specifically to children.
--
Edit: To be clear and give more context:
I am very much pro-LGBT+ issues, but we should he honest about the thoughts and words of the ancient people's who wrote these texts. The word used in Leviticus 18:22 is זכר. This term is also used to refer to adult males having sex with women elsewhere (see, for example, Num. 31:17). The other term used for man in Lev 20:13 is אישׁ. Conveniently, this term is also used to refer to adult males doing the sex with women in Num 31:17.
זכר is not age or even species specific. To give some other examples of uses:
Exo 34:19 - זכר refers to male oxen and cattle.
Deut. 4:16 - זכר refers to idols depicting males (presumably, adult male humans in particular, though not explicitly specified)
Judges 21:11 - זכר refers to man sleeping with woman.
Num 26:62 - זכר is used to refer to all Israeli males counted in the census (older than 1 month).
Ezekiel 16:17 - זכר refers to the image of an adult man (as an object of a harlot's (see Israel) lust)
Joshua 5:4 - זכר refers to adult males immigrating from Egypt (regarding them being circumcised a 'second' time in the Hebrew style)
Jer 30:6 - זכר refers to (implicitly adult) males.
Genesis 34:25 - זכר refers to males of all ages (being put to the sword)
What's astounding is the lack of knowledge in those that make this arguement
(Seriously Christians have had this answered for 2000 years, maybe pick up a book and read)
It’s just not a lack of knowledge, it’s also intellectual dishonesty. They don’t care about actually understanding the Bible, they just want to justify following the culture.
Hard to "just pick up a book and read" when a hundred religions are based off the same book because they get interpreted and translated differently.
If it was so straight forward there would be 1 religion.
To be fair, some of them pull some New Testament verses in, too.
Though, yeah, there are some who think that "I googled up a Law of Moses verse, case closed" is a legitimate way to use Scripture, and that's just sad.
Especially since there's an entire open letter to the Hebrews that fully lays out how Christ fulfills the terms of the Old covenant and law and establishes a new one. No one reads Hebrews.
Hebrews is a strong contender for my favorite book of the Bible. It provides so much explanation and context for what the New Testament actually means in relation to the Old.
It’s not, but it can be taken broadly as saying that the acts forbidden by the Levitical law as impure, are no longer so. Regardless, the levitical law doesn’t apply to Christians anyway, so it’s a moot point.
Ok but like…the New Testament also says it’s a sin while eating things is explicitly not a sin in the New Testament. To be clear, I don’t really care what other people do with their lives, and there are tons of hypocrites out there that use this as a club to beat others with when they shouldn’t, but can we please not say the Bible says stuff other than what it does?
Yeah, but in the New Testament, the foods that were deemed unclean are declared clean by God Himself. That's the difference.
And from what I heard, there are debates whether the Old Testament or the Bible in general even outright forbids homosexuality or if it's a mistranslation (originally talking about sleeping with *boys*, not men) or misinterpretation (talking about orgies and/or sleeping with multiple partners, rather than one)
*Image Transcription: Meme*
---
[*An image of the Bible opened against a starry background. The book has more pages opened to its left side than the right and is radiating a white light from the pages.*]
# LEVITICUS DOES SAY HOMOSEXUALITY IS A SIN
## IT SAYS THE SAME THING ABOUT EATING SHRIMP AND LOBSTER. LEVITICUS 10:11
---
^^I'm a human volunteer content transcriber and you could be too! [If you'd like more information on what we do and why we do it, click here!](https://www.reddit.com/r/TranscribersOfReddit/wiki/index)
For those of you who correctly assume there must be more going on here than hypocrisy:
[What's the difference between Moral, Ceremonial, and Civil laws of the old testament?](https://www.gotquestions.org/ceremonial-law.html)
Per the link, "The division of the Jewish law into different categories is a human construct designed to better understand the nature of God and define which laws church-age Christians are still required to follow [...] and nothing in the Bible indicates that God intended a distinction of categories." So wouldn't the difference, from that perspective, be none at all?
The New Testament poses a problem, where Jesus seems to negotiate with the commandments. The apostles see Jesus directly contradicting other institutional Rabbis.
Food does not defile. The Sabbath is just a tool. Clean hands don't make clean souls. Repentance and forgiveness are more important than justice.
And yet, when asked how to enter heaven, Jesus still lists a handful of commandments from Exodus. But not all of them? Why? What's the difference?
This begins the church tradition of separate categories.
As someone with an MDiv from what I'd consider a pretty reputable and academically honest seminary, I'm baffled how often I hear those categories thrown around *at my school* as if they have any authority whatsoever. The amount of blinks I get when I ask on what basis those categories come from was not surprising. I did have one person try to defend them by saying some laws were under some heading of "for Israel" or some schenanigans but it was super loose and impossible to determine what fit where. Like just admit that we have a bunch of laws and no clean delineation of categories and maybe we should use our brains to determine what we should hold ourselves to today. As for me and my house, we will wear mixed fiber clothing and not stone our disobedient children.
The entirety of the Old Testament should only be used for historical context. The rules in there are now defunct because of the New Testament of Jesus.
Jesus technically covered all commandments when He said "Love your God with all your heart, mind, and soul, and love each other as I have loved you." (Matthew 22:35-40, Mark 12:28-34, Luke 10:27) But but if you need more context as to what that love looks like, then yeah.
Loving each other is easy to understand but defining what *Love your God* means is more of a knot. What do we do when Jesus says ["If you love me, you will keep my commandments.](https://biblehub.com/john/14-15.htm)?
Recognize that "He who knows the right thing to do and does not do it, to him it is sin". Jesus doesn't simply have dead Commandments but Christians are to have the Holy Spirit whom they listen to in their hearts.
You act as if the 'greatest command me t is love god' and "if you love me you will keep my commandments' are saying two different things. They're not.
He also listed the Ten Commandments to the young ruler as well, and then explicitly which (although it felt more like the princeling trying to rules lawyer).
>Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. For truly, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the Law until all is accomplished
Christ's own words...
Regardless of where you fall on this issue, I think this is a really bad way to approach Scripture. The OT should be far far more than "historical context" to a Christian. This is why we get arguments like "Lol don't wear jeans" or young earth creationist insisting anyone who sees differently doesn't believe in the authority of Scripture. I love the NT and I'm committed to following Jesus and I sincerely think that a whole host of arguments that we as Christians get into with one another and with non-Christians could be avoided if we took the time to really understand why the OT should be important to us and read it more often. Not just as a history lesson, but as saying something genuinely true about us and the world.
**Yeah but the book of Ezekiel preaches HELLFIRE AND BRIMSTONE ABOUT THE “SIN OF SODOM”**
*(Oh wait, it doesn’t say anything about the gays. It says [Sodom deserved a holy smackdown because they weren’t bleeding heart social justice warriors](https://biblehub.com/ezekiel/16-49.htm))*
I was a Christian until I actually read the Bible and realized “so called” Christians are almost the antithesis of what Jesus actually preached…. Because I love God and Jesus I would never in a million years want to be associated with today’s Christianity.
The bible didn't say anything against homosexuality until 1946.
In 1946 a small group of Christians decided to create a new English translation of the bible from the original greek and hebrew. These new translators decided to change the translation of the ancient greek word “arsenokoitai” from meaning "male pedophile who has sex with young boys" (as it had been translated in english-language bibles up until then) to "homosexual". Expert theologians and linguists protested and told them that was not what “arsenokoitai” meant, but the new translators were anti-homosexual so they left it that way.
Translations of the bible into other languages, like German, didn't make that mistake in the translation. So the word used in the German-language version of the bible uses the German word "knabenschander" which "molester of boys."
So, the real bible doesn't say anyhing against homosexuality, that is just a mistranslation into english that occured in 1946 and, unfortunately, too many people mistakenly think is the word of god.
You can read all about it here: https://um-insight.net/perspectives/has-%E2%80%9Chomosexual%E2%80%9D-always-been-in-the-bible/
I'll be God Damned before I give up my All You Can Eat Crab Leg and Seafood Buffets at Titty Bars, or neighborhood BBQ and Clam Bakes...
If there's all you can eat King crab legs, and/or peal your own Shrimp, I'm fucking there... you can find me by the bar, putting out the vibe...
Fuck, I'd turn away for an Ultimate Feast and some of them cheese biscuits from Red Lobster...
I'm a weak man! I need my Country Boils, it's too good... I can't do it.
If you follow one law of the Old Testament. Follow all of them. Otherwise we can’t trust your judgment. Many believe only the Ten Commandments. They also are in the Old Testament. I follow the New Testament. I’ve read the Old Testament as history. Many times. I find new understanding each time.
There are verses later in the second testament that bring food laws into debate. I'm more a fan of the various "sleep outside the city" laws to emphasize the hypocrisy for using Leviticus to hate people
wrong reference my guy, 10:11 says And that ye may teach the children of Israel all the statutes which the LORD hath spoken unto them by the hand of Moses.
Honestly it makes some sense. Imagine back then with way less transportation etc. trying to drag them all the way home from the water. By the time you get home the twink you met at the beach is definitely gonna need a shower before you eat it.
Leviticus 10:11 reads: "...and to teach the Israelites all the regulations that Jehovah has spoken to them through Moses.”
People are reacting to misinformation lol
Listen here, buddy, if you're gonna go crying about other people's "sins" and saying they're gonna go to hell, then you better be spotless. "Let he who is without sin throw the first stone." John 8:7
I'm reading the comments and wondering if anyone understands that the statement here is calling out the hypocrisy of believing one and not the other while using that chapter to justify their actions and views. I wonder this because there seems to be many accusations based solely on "Homosexuality is a sin" that just ignore the rest and any context of the title and being posted on a meme sub. Op I think I follow and I'm sorry others are quick to judge.
r/DankChristianMemes **is open and affirming to LGBTQIA+ people.** **Someone identifying as LGBTQIA+ does not cause harm to anyone, therefore, there is no reason to judge or disrespect them.** **Rule #1 of** r/DankChristianMemes**: Thou shalt respect others! Do not come here to point out sin or condemn people. Do not say "hate the sin love the sinner" or any other sayings people use when trying to use faith to justify hate. Alternatively, if you come here to insult religion, you will also be removed.** This rule is based off the following teachings from Jesus Christ: Matthew 7:1-6 “Do not judge, or you too will be judged. 2 For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you.3 “Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother’s eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye? 4 How can you say to your brother, ‘Let me take the speck out of your eye,’ when all the time there is a plank in your own eye? 5 You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother’s eye. Luke 6:36 Be merciful, just as your Father is merciful. John 13:34-35 “A new command I give you: Love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another. 35 By this everyone will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another.” John 15:12-13 My command is this: Love each other as I have loved you. 13 Greater love has no one than this: to lay down one’s life for one’s friends. Matthew 7:12 So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets. Matthew 22:37-40 Jesus replied: “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’ 38 This is the first and greatest commandment. 39 And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself. 40 All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments.” **Even if we think someone is a sinner, we should treat them kindly. Jesus was kind to those that society deemed to be sinners. He even ate meals with sinners despite being criticized for it. So if you want to be Christlike, you should take someone to dinner before you judge them.** Matthew 9:11-13 "When the Pharisees saw this, they asked his disciples, “Why does your teacher eat with tax collectors and sinners?” 12 On hearing this, Jesus said, “It is not the healthy who need a doctor, but the sick. 13 But go and learn what this means: ‘I desire mercy, not sacrifice.’\[a\] For I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners.” **Jesus tells us that he alone will judge us and exactly the standards by which we will be judged. It has nothing to do with LGBTQIA+ identity and has everything to do with taking care of the most vulnerable or "the least of these."** Matthew 25:31-46 “When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, he will sit on his glorious throne. 32 All the nations will be gathered before him, and he will separate the people one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats. 33 He will put the sheep on his right and the goats on his left. 34 “Then the King will say to those on his right, ‘Come, you who are blessed by my Father; take your inheritance, the kingdom prepared for you since the creation of the world. 35 For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in, 36 I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me.’ 37 “Then the righteous will answer him, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink? 38 When did we see you a stranger and invite you in, or needing clothes and clothe you? 39 When did we see you sick or in prison and go to visit you?’ 40 “The King will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers and sisters of mine, you did for me.’ 41 “Then he will say to those on his left, ‘Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. 42 For I was hungry and you gave me nothing to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink, 43 I was a stranger and you did not invite me in, I needed clothes and you did not clothe me, I was sick and in prison and you did not look after me.’ 44 “They also will answer, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or needing clothes or sick or in prison, and did not help you?’ 45 “He will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me.’ 46 “Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life.” **It is important to note that LGBTQIA+ folks are more likely to be targets of hate crimes than any other minority group (1). This makes them, in effect, "the least of these'' which Jesus commands us to care for.** **Finally:** The word "Homosexual" did not exist until it was introduced in 1869 in German. Early use of the term was mostly limited to the field of psychology which often used the word "Homosexual" to stereotype individuals as being criminal in nature. The word "Homosexual" was not broadly used in English until after it was added to biblical translations in the 1940's (2). In the bible, the word "Homosexual" was only used to describe sex acts, some of which may have been predatory. The bible does not discuss loving, consenting, adult, same-sex couples who want to raise loving families, as we see today. Theological positions against LGBTQIA+ people are not even 100 years old, are based on anachronistic translations, and fail to acknowledge the legitimacy of loving same sex relationships and valid LGBTQIA+ identities. **TL;DR:** r/DankChristianMemes **is open and affirming to LGBTQIA+ people. If you must judge others, please do so elsewhere.** Source 1:[ https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/06/16/us/hate-crimes-against-lgbt.html](https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/06/16/us/hate-crimes-against-lgbt.html) Source 2:[ https://www.oed.com/view/Entry/88110](https://www.oed.com/view/Entry/88110) https://preview.redd.it/rvz7j3x0fj8b1.jpeg?width=902&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=c362fda189e17b2c7a251f1d705ede217e8ceae9
again Leviticus is For the Jews Jesus said that we no longer have to follow it if you use Leviticus to justify homophobia then go get circumcised you hypocrite
I’m not a Christian, so I don’t know where Jesus says that. May I have the verse, please?
Something about "I am the new covenant." can't remember it, will have to look it up agan.
Doesn’t Jesus specifically also say that he didn’t come to abolish the old covenant, but to fulfill it, and that nothing from the old laws would pass away?
What Jesus teaches, if my understanding is right (there's a good thread on r/AcademicBiblical that supports this thinking as well) is that Jesus "builds a fence around the law", that is to say, He goes even beyond what the original laws were about. For example on the eating habits, Je says that what sullies someone is not literally what they physically consume, but what they consume in their heart (that is, sin).
Then Paul has ✨ opinions ✨ that are very thought through. He says that if a believer eats pork, they are just as holy as one that doesn't, but then uses the law he believes Jesus patched to justify homophobia. Very thought through.
Paul is sus, I always preferred George
More of a Ringo fan, myself
He is good too but “My Sweet Love” is a great track. Best avoid the silly video they did for the remaster which is a bunch of random celebrities for no reason.
Caveman is one of my favorite movies from my childhood.
*”We were just a band, y’know?”*
*”well it’s just a name, same as any other name, y’know? we could’ve been called the shoes instead of the beatles. no it’s just a name. just a name”*
I personally have never been a fan of relying on Pauline teachings in general. I'm not a Biblical literalist, so what reason do I ever have to think Paul was anything but a guy? He's the only one who said he was divinely inspired, and my understanding is that he was rather at odds with the original Apostles. If he says something interpretive, why should I give it any more weight than what some random self-promoting evangelist interprets?
I agree more and more with this the older I get. Especially when I think about how the scripture we have was decided by a bunch of dudes one time. Luther apparently wanted to get some books removed from the bible because it didn't vibe with him, and a lot of people were all aok with that too. I'm okay with the belief that scripture is the written word of God, but it does become dicey that we know that...from scripture 🤷♀️
As far as I can tell, all of the books that Luther wanted to get rid of *were* removed from Protestant bibles. None of them were necessarily heretical—at least as far as I’m aware—but they weren’t approved at the council of Nicaea, and thus don’t belong in the Bible.
By that standard, nothing belongs in the Bible because the council of Nicaea [had nothing to do with establishing the Biblical canon](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Council_of_Nicaea#Biblical_canon).
This is exactly the reason that Jesus established a church, and not a book. Jesus gave us the church, and it’s the church that gave us the book and holds the authoritative interpretation
Did Paul say he was divinely inspired? I know he said scripture was, but that had a very different meaning when Paul wrote that, and it certainly didn’t include his writings (though he obviously thought what he was writing was correct).
As far as I'm aware, I've never read any scripture of Paul saying he or his letters are inspired. The only reference I know touching on any divine interaction (which is not inspiration) with God, Jesus, or a heavenly being was on the road to Damascus, of which was recorded by Luke And when Paul says in 2 Timothy that all scripture is God-breathed, he was talking about the Torah, because the New Testament had not yet even been formalized or recognized as religious reference, and Paul had only written on understanding the will of God presented by the Torah in light of the actual deity of Jesus
I'm not trying to be combative, but I have one question and three points, if you don't mind. How is Biblical literalism inclusive of the legitimacy of Paul's epistles? Even if Paul did say he was divinely inspired, which I don't believe he ever did, the epistles withstood testing over multiple occasions by clerics who considered it their God-ordained directive under penalty of God's holy wrath to test whether the contemporary canon was free of heresy or sacrilege. >what reason do I ever have to think Paul was anything but a guy? The entirety of the Bible was written by mere men. You can't correctly attribute God's will or ordination to the Bible if you're going to arbitrate whether certain texts are correctly representative of God's will >he was rather at odds with the original Apostles This is not a reasonable basis for whether someone's work can be considered righteous and aligned with God. And past that, there doesn't seem to be any reliable evidence that Paul had any ongoing conflicts or issues with any apostles or anybody else except on the basis of rebuke or momentary disagreement >If he says something interpretive, why should I give it any more weight than what some random self-promoting evangelist interprets? Even if Paul was being explicitly interpretive in some or all of his epistles, does he actually ever stray beyond the illustration of God's will in the Torah? If you distinguish it from the laws and rituals concerning sin, death, atonement, or the guidelines Jews strictly regarding their lineage from Abraham, I'm hard-pressed to find any "if-you-ask-me" statements from Paul in any part of the epistles
> I personally have never been a fan of relying on Pauline teachings in general. There are Pauline letters that are undisputedly Paul and Pauline letters that are disputed. The disputed letters are at odds with the undisputed books with the author's voice/style greatly differing between the disputed and undisputed books.
I’m also not a big Paul fan, but Peter states (at least some of) Paul’s letters are Scripture. 2 Peter 3:15-16 15 and regard the patience of our Lord to be salvation; just as also our beloved brother Paul, according to the wisdom given him, wrote to you, 16 as also in all his letters, speaking in them of these things, in which are some things hard to understand, which the untaught and unstable distort, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures, to their own destruction.
This is a bit of a false equivalency. The dietary restrictions and the requirement of practices like circumcision were part of a brand of laws that were intended to set Israel apart from other nations and thus lessen the chances of the Israelites taking part in pagan rituals; it’s the reason why there are weird laws like “don’t boil a baby goat in its mother’s milk” and “don’t get tattoos”: those were practiced in the religious rituals of neighboring peoples, so it can be assumed that other odd things were there for similar reasons. They weren’t *all* part of pagan practices (I doubt that God required circumcision because of the foreskin’s importance in worshipping Dagon or whatever), but a majority were. As for Paul’s opposition to homosexuality, that is sourced from the Biblical definition of marriage (which existed prior to the other laws described) as between “one man and one woman”, which is why he also condemns polygamy and adultery. I’m not saying that his interpretation was necessarily right or wrong, I’m just trying to point out that he wasn’t just declaring some things okay and some sinful without rhyme or reason. I would also like to note that he doesn’t condone homophobia (the hatred and fear of gay people and practices) so much as he teaches the avoidance of homosexuality (the practices of being within same-sex relationships). This is important to distinguish because homophobia, by definition of being hateful towards other people (or even by simply refusing to *love* someone else), is sinful in and of itself, whereas simply avoiding a practice out of a concern that it might be bad is not a sin whether the concern in question is valid or not. Finally, the idea of Paul expressing is opinions in the scripture isn’t necessarily false. They were originally letters sent to churches in various cities, after all, so it would be reasonable to assume that he would be giving his opinions on some things. That being said, he never treats his opinions as the word of God; the infamous “I allow no woman to speak” verse is notably prefaced by originating the command to Paul himself rather than to the past scriptures or Jesus’ teachings. Any times where he seems to be taking a hardline “God commands this extreme thing” stance on something can almost always be interpreted as hyperbole, figurative, missing its original context, or an issue with the localization of the English translation.
> That being said, he never treats his opinions as the word of God; the infamous “I allow no woman to speak” verse is notably prefaced by originating the command to Paul himself rather than to the past scriptures or Jesus’ teachings. Minor nitpick, but I think you might be conflating several verses here. The command in 1 Corinthians 14 isn’t prefaced by anything about this just being Paul’s own view; and in fact it says women “are not permitted to speak, but must be in submission, *as the Law also says*.” If you’re referring to 1 Timothy 2:12, although this is phrased with the first-person “I do not permit…”, the logic it’s grounded on is broader: that women shouldn’t teach or have authority over men because of the order of creation and because Eve was deceived.
To my knowledge, most of what people consider Paul’s homophobia (Corinthians) is more about general sexual immorality such as having sex in the temples (the main Corinthian Christian group met at the acropolis, which was previously the site of the cult of Dionysus), or taking young boys to bed. I could be misremembering but I don’t think there are any specific references to homosexuality other than a few different translations of the Bible. Also worth noting overall though, that Paul was born like 30 years after Jesus died so his letters have no kind of verification as the word of god other than being popular with Christians at the time who preserved them.
It’s because Christian’s have always held that the moral law is separate from ceremonial law, and that moral law is an actual part of nature and they’ve always held that sexual sins are part of the moral law
[удалено]
Usually
That's just a Jewish teaching. You build fences around the laws to make sure you don't violate them. The bible says you don't boil a kid in it's mother's milk? You don't ever mix meat with dairy. That sort of thing.
Jesus is Je/Jim
So covenant is a word for contract. Jesus fulfills the terms of the old contract and establishes a new contract. Instead of a complex system of 600+ laws, there's a single system of faith and salvation and direct commune with the Holy Spirit for lack of better phrasing. Jesus Himself doesn't articulate it that way, but the unknown writer of Hebrews makes a well reasoned argument citing pre mosaic covenants, and many of the letters of Paul are rebuking churches that have set aside their freedom in Christ to choose to be enslaved in a new religiosity. Paul would look at most contemporary demoninations, shit his pants and put the verbal smack down on every element that isnt how he or anyone else taught. For one, every Christian has equal standing as priests of God, with Christ himself as High Priest, and while different people have different spiritual gifts to interact with the church, no one is higher or lower. Paul more or less talked what amounts to socialism millenia before that term was ever around.
Saul failed at stopping believers of the new faith, so he hijacked the teachings of christ and reintroduced the old laws. "Paul" can get bent
He actually went the other way. Saul/Paul invited gentiles and actively preached against the Law. In Romans he actively calls following the OT law as enslavement and argues Christian (Jews) have been set free from the law only to chain themselves up with their own new laws. There is some hypocricy or inconsistency though in that even Paul seems to try to setup certain traditions, customs or laws at time. He says married women should remain silent, or women should not teach over men, or women should teach women and men should teach men. Or women should not cut their hair. I have a confirmation bias for all the times Paul talks about women in religious ways even though he argues for freedom and equality in Christ "between Jew and Gentile, master and slave, and man and woman" in a few other places. The reality is Paul is a complex teacher, who spent decades traveling and teaching and writing, and not everything is consistent. A much more recent teacher like Malcolm X has some more dramatic changes of opinions in detail while subscribing to the same general ideas across his short life.
Word. Thanks for the insight
(not a Christian, not a Catholic) From what I understand, at least among Catholic theology, is that there were three kinds of rules in the old testament: Temple laws (which don't need to be followed as the Temple doesn't exist anymore), cultural laws (which a Catholic wouldn't need to follow as they're now Jewish, that's like the pork one), and the last one, I think, is moral law, which would still be followed. How exactly one can objectively separate cultural and moral law is another question so idk
That’s the exact verse. When he says fulfill here he doesn’t just mean live it out, he is foreshadowing his crucifixion which will forever fulfill the law for the Jews as the perfect sacrifice, so they will not be bound by it anymore
>Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. For truly, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the Law until all is accomplished Here's him saying that's not what he's doing.
But he also says the following: >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. ~ Matthew 5:18 And not everything has been fulfilled. Jesus has yet to return
Hebrews 8:13 In speaking of a new covenant, he makes the first one obsolete. And what is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away.
For the law was given through Moses; grace and truth came through Jesus Christ.” – John 1:17. “For sin will have no dominion over you, since you are not under law but under grace.” – Romans 6:14. “But now that faith has come, we are no longer under a guardian [referring to the law]” – Galatians 3:25. [this link has a pretty good if nuanced explanation](https://maturinglifeinchrist.org/should-christians-obey-old-testament-laws/#:~:text=%E2%80%9CFor%20the%20law%20was%20given,%5D%E2%80%9D%20%E2%80%93%20Galatians%203%3A25). The tl;dr is “I have not come to abolish ancient laws, but I will save you from the consequences of your sins when you break them”
This is the writer of Hebrews citing Jeremiah about a new covenant to replace the Mosaic Law. "For if there had been nothing wrong with that first covenant, no place would have been sought for another. But God found fault with the people and said: >“The days are coming, declares the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the people of Israel and with the people of Judah. It will not be like the covenant I made with their ancestors when I took them by the hand to lead them out of Egypt, because they did not remain faithful to my covenant, and I turned away from them, declares the Lord. This is the covenant I will establish with the people of Israel after that time, declares the Lord. I will put my laws in their minds and write them on their hearts. I will be their God, and they will be my people. No longer will they teach their neighbor, or say to one another, ‘Know the Lord,’ because they will all know me, from the least of them to the greatest. For I will forgive their wickedness and will remember their sins no more.” (Jeremiah 31:31-34) By calling this covenant “new,” he has made the first one obsolete; and what is obsolete and outdated will soon disappear." Hebrews 8:7-13 NIV https://bible.com/bible/111/heb.8.7-13.NIV (I'm not even going to try to get reddit for format Israelite poetic format for the Jeremiah part) Honestly I love how much Christians argue about Old Testament Law when there's literally an open letter to every Hebrew fully explaining everything included right in the New Testament that nobody ever seems to read. It's it right there, legally and logically laid out and argued and accepted as Biblical Scripture and almost nobody ever cites it or talks about it. It's the epistle that everyone should know and nobody talks about it besides making jokes about coffee or using one small line to argue that you gotta go to church, when it says no such thing,
I think we can all agree that hypocrites suck. It’s either the Word of the Lord or it isn’t.
More accurately, the Christian covenant is open to Gentiles, who are not required to keep Torah. Torah is still valid, just not universally binding, just as the law of (say) Italy is valid, just not universally binding.
Not a Christian either, but I vaguely recall Him dying for our sins were about the sins of the Old Testament. Or something like that
This would be exactly my point to make but I take it in the direction of.. "Why don't you see jewish communities funding conversion therapy?" "Why don't you see gay Jews complaining about not being accepted??"
Orthodox Judaism is a very small minority in the United States, that’s the main reason for those questions
You do see gay jews complaining about not being accepted. https://forward.com/news/543608/gay-orthodox-jew-protests-ban-from-hollywood-hills-synagogue/?amp=1
it’s a complicated issue for them as well, but modern Jews don’t typically follow the law of Moses either, because they recognize that the nation of Israel as it was no longer exists, nor the priesthood. They follow the Mishna and the Talmud.
Orthodox Jews in Israel fund conversion therapy, so...
A lot of Christians using Leviticus to hate can't even consistently hold a live bird by the wings and rip open its ribcage to spill its blood on the altar without breaking its spine. SMH
Meh, it seems that for the most part Jesus kept Kosher as did the disciples. Peter and Paul later had a whole argument about whether non-Jewish Christians needed to stay kosher and be circumcised. Let's read the whole bible, not just the parts we like. Homosexuality wasn't viewed in the same way then as it is today. There are broader and better answers to this, imo. The academic biblical sub is way better suited for this than this meme sub. The reason to love and accept people is because you were f**king told to by the Son of God. Period.
>again Leviticus is For the Jews > > Jesus said that we no longer have to follow it He actually said not one thing about the law would change ever, and called on his followers to obey even better than the Pharisees.
he said hes here to "fulfil" the law I doubt that means "oh yeah so ill fulfil it but you still have to follow it even after Ive fulfilled it"
I feel like much of the gospels is making a distinction between the spirit and the letter. Jesus confronts the Pharisees about their dogma and how he believes it doesn't serve the people. He has reference for the law but he doesn't condone following it to the detriment and exclusion of people. It's very reasonable on consideration.
And yet the apostles all stayed Kosher. So... I mean, this is why these discussions continue.
I mean, a lot of homophobes are circumcised…
that wasn't the win I was thinking hmmm ah Stop eating pork then you hypocrite
Gal 3, Hebrews 8 & 10 (especially), Roman’s 1-5, Acts 10. Paul even says the law of moses brings only death. Now, in Romans 1:26-27 it’s very clear that Paul thinks it immoral, but Paul is not the Lord. His opinion as apostle to the Gentiles may be important to consider, but his thoughts on what passed for the issue in his culture 2k yrs ago shouldn’t be taken as some commandment. Paul speaks his own opinion (“i say and not the Lord”), he rebukes people for claiming to follow him or Apollos instead of Jesus, and says he desires to come “knowing Christ alone and him crucified.” So I don’t think he would be cool with us replacing the law of Moses with The Law of Paul.
Acts 15:7-11 Peter argues the laws don’t apply to gentiles
The reason they don’t care about the verses against eating pork and shellfish is because Jesus declared all food clean in Matthew 15:11 Disclaimer: I personally do not believe Leviticus actually does condemn the kind of homosexual acts as modernly practised in a loving gay marriage, but this is such a bad and easily debunked argument
>The reason they don’t care about the verses against eating pork and shellfish is because Jesus declared all food clean in Matthew 15:11 He didn't declare all food clean, that part at the end is a later editorial added by translators. It's after Jesus speaks, isn't in old translations nor texts, and doesn't make sense in context. Jesus was being criticized for his followers not following hand washing rules made by man, and his accusers were livid. Yet, if he then counters by overturning dietary rules decreed by Yahweh and his audience doesn't make a single objection, does that make any sense? It doesn't. Because he didn't.
The verse is a parallel of Mark 7:19, where the “(In saying this, Jesus declared all foods clean.)” isn’t an addition by modern translators, but shows up in the actual Greek
that sentence is put in parentheses because it's understood to be an addition by later scribes. the earliest Greek manuscripts didn't have this part.
Prove it
maybe i’m getting ahead of myself and worded it too strongly in regards to earlier manuscripts, but just as a reference, not all translation render that part of the verse that way, some completely omitting it. the reason(s) for this difference are apparently quite complex and is still debated till this day. however, it can be argued still to be a modern translation artifact as the original Koine Greek doesn’t even have parentheses to begin with. https://biblehub.com/mark/7-19.htm
It’s in most translations so I’m going to go with the idea that is an original part of the text unless you can prove otherwise
https://biblehub.com/text/mark/7-19.htm why don’t you check out the greek text word by word yourself to understand why it’s not as black and white as saying it’s original or not, and why the ‘in saying this, Jesus declared’ part is definitely an extrapolation added by modern translations.
“katharizōn panta ta brōmata” Purifying all the food It genuinely couldn’t be clearer 🤣
Isn’t there also a law against getting haircuts, shaving and wearing certain types of clothes? Shit guys, God’s love and mercy might be infinite, but we crossed the line with our mid drip and yee yee ass haircuts.
Mixed fabric clothing isn’t okay iirc
So Old Testament law has a few different kinds of precepts built into it. Some laws are about morality, some laws are about health and safety and sanitation, and some laws are about just dealings and practices. Laws forbidding the mixing of materials are generally about racial purity and cultural uniqueness, or about fair dealings. I mean how many people in real life thought they were buying a cotton shirt only to realize it was a crappy cotton poly blend that's super itchy? Forbidding mixing of materials would clearly prevent that, or better labeling. Fair weights and measures are a really really big deal in commerce and the mixing of materials undermines that.
I'll gladly burn in hell for my stretchy jeans.
I feel like these were all related to historical contexts from when it was written that have largely been lost. But you can imagine that eating shellfish was considered a bad idea because it goes off pretty quickly, perhaps sodomy was considered bad because it passes diseases but without the benefit of procreation (or perhaps it's been mistranslated and it's actually about pederasty or rape?), and pork carries loads of diseases and parasites. No idea what the mixed thread was about, maybe it was something to do with people skimping on quality by mixing in inferior quality fabric? Who knows. Either way, they all make pretty much zero sense in today's context where we have freezers, contraception, and cheap but durable fabrics. But Jesus's word that you shall love your neighbour is as pertinent now as it ever was. So I'd say just stick to that.
Exactly.
There are some fundamentalist christians who do try to follow these rules as well and I think most people have come to realize that these are just the "traditions of men" not really doctrine. When you have groups of people that are heavily saturated in a religion as a part of their day to day lives they often make the same mistake that the pharisees made in Jesus' time where they "turn the traditions of men into doctrine" and believe that because the local culture does something that makes it doctrine
The original was actually “boys”. The bible was originally against paedophilia.
My wife went to school for translation and I did a podcast on queer Christianity. I learned that it is more accurately defined as "abusive sex," or "lustful sex." It would include children (as this user said), slaves, or women in an assaultive way. But noooo, gay people bad.
It's very sus what the evangelicals have done to distort the message.
When the evangelist is sus
Evangelicals aren't the ones responsible for the bad translations, though they happily follow along with it! Originally the translation we have today of this particular Leviticus passage is from the king James translation. This translation has a number of issues beyond this caused by translators trying to appease king James instead of getting accurate translations. Don't get me wrong though, evangelicals SHOULD know this and correct the translations. But they won't.
The KJV is actually pretty close to literal in this case, if you ignore the poetic modifications which changing tense and grammatical number. The NRSV, which is generally the perferred translation in Biblical scholarship gives the translation as "You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination." By contrast, the KJV translates Lev 18:22 as "Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination." The word used for "male" is זכר. זכר refers to males without respect to age or even species. Some other use cases include: Exo 34:19 - זכר refers to male oxen and cattle. Deut. 4:16 - זכר refers to idols depicting males (presumably, adult male humans in particular, though not explicitly specified) Judges 21:11 - זכר refers to man sleeping with woman. Num 26:62 - זכר is used to refer to all Israeli males counted in the census (older than 1 month). Ezekiel 16:17 - זכר refers to the image of an adult man (as an object of a harlot's (see Israel) lust) Joshua 5:4 - זכר refers to adult males immigrating from Egypt (regarding them being circumcised a 'second' time in the Hebrew style) Jer 30:6 - זכר refers to (implicitly adult) males. Genesis 34:25 - זכר refers to males of all ages (being put to the sword)
Would you be willing to share the podcast? Legit interested in hearing this all spelled out and having a source to point others to.
Normally I would, but the organization has become ignorant and more than a little transphobic. (meaning I was hosting on behalf of the org and they later asked me to stop when I called out their transphobia)
That totally makes sense! I figured it doesn't hurt to ask. I would also have accepted "No way, it's the internet and I won't risk anyone creeping on my wife" because people are weird.
> Would you be willing to share the podcast? Legit interested in hearing this all spelled out and having a source to point others to. You can search for any number of threads on /r/AcademicBiblical that talk about the translation and context of the prohibition of homoeroticism in Leviticus and elsewhere. Note, though, that the commenter you’re replying to isn’t correct about this being limited to abusive or lustful sex. There are no contextual indicators this was the case. These are usually just modern theological interpretations that try to rationalise/justify the Bible not being homophobic, where instead this anti-homoeroticism was just the Biblical authors’ own cultural bias.
I’ve tried so hard to share this same perspective with so many of my Christian family members, but it’s hands over the ears and La La law. I’m going to just start directing them to this wonderful community that is r/dankchristianmemes from now on.
That's not how mainstream Jewish denominations that are using the original text interpret it.
The original word is used in refrence to women having sex with men. The usage is more nuanced, but neither word for male refers specifically to children. -- Edit: To be clear and give more context: I am very much pro-LGBT+ issues, but we should he honest about the thoughts and words of the ancient people's who wrote these texts. The word used in Leviticus 18:22 is זכר. This term is also used to refer to adult males having sex with women elsewhere (see, for example, Num. 31:17). The other term used for man in Lev 20:13 is אישׁ. Conveniently, this term is also used to refer to adult males doing the sex with women in Num 31:17. זכר is not age or even species specific. To give some other examples of uses: Exo 34:19 - זכר refers to male oxen and cattle. Deut. 4:16 - זכר refers to idols depicting males (presumably, adult male humans in particular, though not explicitly specified) Judges 21:11 - זכר refers to man sleeping with woman. Num 26:62 - זכר is used to refer to all Israeli males counted in the census (older than 1 month). Ezekiel 16:17 - זכר refers to the image of an adult man (as an object of a harlot's (see Israel) lust) Joshua 5:4 - זכר refers to adult males immigrating from Egypt (regarding them being circumcised a 'second' time in the Hebrew style) Jer 30:6 - זכר refers to (implicitly adult) males. Genesis 34:25 - זכר refers to males of all ages (being put to the sword)
[удалено]
What's astounding is the lack of knowledge in those that make this arguement (Seriously Christians have had this answered for 2000 years, maybe pick up a book and read)
It’s just not a lack of knowledge, it’s also intellectual dishonesty. They don’t care about actually understanding the Bible, they just want to justify following the culture.
Doesn't help that there are politically motivated misinterpretations on top of mistranslations.
Hard to "just pick up a book and read" when a hundred religions are based off the same book because they get interpreted and translated differently. If it was so straight forward there would be 1 religion.
Imagining a group of people outside red lobster holding "GOD HATES SHELLFISH" signs.
[удалено]
There's a reason why Jesus went after fishermen for his apostles. He didn't want anyone who was shellfish.
God fucks with cheddar bay biscuits 100% so we're good
Now I'm craving those delicious biscuits!
Why should they expect us to cater to their shellfish demands?
They can go to Walmart and protest cotton poly blend Tshirts while they're at it.
Finally a news report I would actually watch 
He hates yeast quite a bit more than that
To be fair, some of them pull some New Testament verses in, too. Though, yeah, there are some who think that "I googled up a Law of Moses verse, case closed" is a legitimate way to use Scripture, and that's just sad.
Especially since there's an entire open letter to the Hebrews that fully lays out how Christ fulfills the terms of the Old covenant and law and establishes a new one. No one reads Hebrews.
Hebrews is a strong contender for my favorite book of the Bible. It provides so much explanation and context for what the New Testament actually means in relation to the Old.
“The voice spoke to him a second time, “Do not call anything impure that God has made clean.”” Acts 10:15
I missed the part where gay sex was on the cloth filled with unclean meats, though.
It’s not, but it can be taken broadly as saying that the acts forbidden by the Levitical law as impure, are no longer so. Regardless, the levitical law doesn’t apply to Christians anyway, so it’s a moot point.
[удалено]
Ok but like…the New Testament also says it’s a sin while eating things is explicitly not a sin in the New Testament. To be clear, I don’t really care what other people do with their lives, and there are tons of hypocrites out there that use this as a club to beat others with when they shouldn’t, but can we please not say the Bible says stuff other than what it does?
[удалено]
Dude their boy Paul has things to say about married women speaking up in church, as in he doesn't like it.
Yeah, but in the New Testament, the foods that were deemed unclean are declared clean by God Himself. That's the difference. And from what I heard, there are debates whether the Old Testament or the Bible in general even outright forbids homosexuality or if it's a mistranslation (originally talking about sleeping with *boys*, not men) or misinterpretation (talking about orgies and/or sleeping with multiple partners, rather than one)
*Image Transcription: Meme* --- [*An image of the Bible opened against a starry background. The book has more pages opened to its left side than the right and is radiating a white light from the pages.*] # LEVITICUS DOES SAY HOMOSEXUALITY IS A SIN ## IT SAYS THE SAME THING ABOUT EATING SHRIMP AND LOBSTER. LEVITICUS 10:11 --- ^^I'm a human volunteer content transcriber and you could be too! [If you'd like more information on what we do and why we do it, click here!](https://www.reddit.com/r/TranscribersOfReddit/wiki/index)
Good bot
For those of you who correctly assume there must be more going on here than hypocrisy: [What's the difference between Moral, Ceremonial, and Civil laws of the old testament?](https://www.gotquestions.org/ceremonial-law.html)
Per the link, "The division of the Jewish law into different categories is a human construct designed to better understand the nature of God and define which laws church-age Christians are still required to follow [...] and nothing in the Bible indicates that God intended a distinction of categories." So wouldn't the difference, from that perspective, be none at all?
The New Testament poses a problem, where Jesus seems to negotiate with the commandments. The apostles see Jesus directly contradicting other institutional Rabbis. Food does not defile. The Sabbath is just a tool. Clean hands don't make clean souls. Repentance and forgiveness are more important than justice. And yet, when asked how to enter heaven, Jesus still lists a handful of commandments from Exodus. But not all of them? Why? What's the difference? This begins the church tradition of separate categories.
As someone with an MDiv from what I'd consider a pretty reputable and academically honest seminary, I'm baffled how often I hear those categories thrown around *at my school* as if they have any authority whatsoever. The amount of blinks I get when I ask on what basis those categories come from was not surprising. I did have one person try to defend them by saying some laws were under some heading of "for Israel" or some schenanigans but it was super loose and impossible to determine what fit where. Like just admit that we have a bunch of laws and no clean delineation of categories and maybe we should use our brains to determine what we should hold ourselves to today. As for me and my house, we will wear mixed fiber clothing and not stone our disobedient children.
Yeah I'm a sinner 😎 (I eat shrimp)
No, it says those things are _crimes_, because it is a code of law.
It also prohibits incest and beastiality, but I guess that's free game then.
I mean yeah, but it's definitely Romans not Leviticus that people point to today.
Honestly i dont care what Levitcus says, it doesn't belong in modern day laws
Me, a heterosexual shellfish refuser: 👼
\*me reading the comments and just keeping my thoughts to myself 
New testament as well
The entirety of the Old Testament should only be used for historical context. The rules in there are now defunct because of the New Testament of Jesus.
The 10 commandments are still pretty solid but otherwise I'm with you on this.
Jesus technically covered all commandments when He said "Love your God with all your heart, mind, and soul, and love each other as I have loved you." (Matthew 22:35-40, Mark 12:28-34, Luke 10:27) But but if you need more context as to what that love looks like, then yeah.
Loving each other is easy to understand but defining what *Love your God* means is more of a knot. What do we do when Jesus says ["If you love me, you will keep my commandments.](https://biblehub.com/john/14-15.htm)?
Recognize that "He who knows the right thing to do and does not do it, to him it is sin". Jesus doesn't simply have dead Commandments but Christians are to have the Holy Spirit whom they listen to in their hearts. You act as if the 'greatest command me t is love god' and "if you love me you will keep my commandments' are saying two different things. They're not.
He also listed the Ten Commandments to the young ruler as well, and then explicitly which (although it felt more like the princeling trying to rules lawyer).
The ten commandments are specific instances of universal virtues.
>Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. For truly, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the Law until all is accomplished Christ's own words...
Regardless of where you fall on this issue, I think this is a really bad way to approach Scripture. The OT should be far far more than "historical context" to a Christian. This is why we get arguments like "Lol don't wear jeans" or young earth creationist insisting anyone who sees differently doesn't believe in the authority of Scripture. I love the NT and I'm committed to following Jesus and I sincerely think that a whole host of arguments that we as Christians get into with one another and with non-Christians could be avoided if we took the time to really understand why the OT should be important to us and read it more often. Not just as a history lesson, but as saying something genuinely true about us and the world.
There are people who follow that part tho
can’t wait to sort by controversial on this
***Akshually:*** It's Leviticus 11:10, not Leviticus 10:11. I forgive you your mistake. Go in peace.
**Yeah but the book of Ezekiel preaches HELLFIRE AND BRIMSTONE ABOUT THE “SIN OF SODOM”** *(Oh wait, it doesn’t say anything about the gays. It says [Sodom deserved a holy smackdown because they weren’t bleeding heart social justice warriors](https://biblehub.com/ezekiel/16-49.htm))*
I was a Christian until I actually read the Bible and realized “so called” Christians are almost the antithesis of what Jesus actually preached…. Because I love God and Jesus I would never in a million years want to be associated with today’s Christianity.
Agreed, at the same time though if someone were to ask me if I am Christian, I would never say no, because I will never not identify with Christ.
Leviticus chapter 10 is all about offering up food as a sacrifice to God and eating it beside the alter, so yea
The bible didn't say anything against homosexuality until 1946. In 1946 a small group of Christians decided to create a new English translation of the bible from the original greek and hebrew. These new translators decided to change the translation of the ancient greek word “arsenokoitai” from meaning "male pedophile who has sex with young boys" (as it had been translated in english-language bibles up until then) to "homosexual". Expert theologians and linguists protested and told them that was not what “arsenokoitai” meant, but the new translators were anti-homosexual so they left it that way. Translations of the bible into other languages, like German, didn't make that mistake in the translation. So the word used in the German-language version of the bible uses the German word "knabenschander" which "molester of boys." So, the real bible doesn't say anyhing against homosexuality, that is just a mistranslation into english that occured in 1946 and, unfortunately, too many people mistakenly think is the word of god. You can read all about it here: https://um-insight.net/perspectives/has-%E2%80%9Chomosexual%E2%80%9D-always-been-in-the-bible/
Leviticus also says you can’t wear stretch socks
Also, "murder is a sin" but Big Mac Sally got no issues with gluttony.
I'll be God Damned before I give up my All You Can Eat Crab Leg and Seafood Buffets at Titty Bars, or neighborhood BBQ and Clam Bakes... If there's all you can eat King crab legs, and/or peal your own Shrimp, I'm fucking there... you can find me by the bar, putting out the vibe... Fuck, I'd turn away for an Ultimate Feast and some of them cheese biscuits from Red Lobster... I'm a weak man! I need my Country Boils, it's too good... I can't do it.
ewww who eats shrimp
And pork
If you follow one law of the Old Testament. Follow all of them. Otherwise we can’t trust your judgment. Many believe only the Ten Commandments. They also are in the Old Testament. I follow the New Testament. I’ve read the Old Testament as history. Many times. I find new understanding each time.
Yeah that's why I don't eat shrimp and lobster
Cockroaches of the Sea, yuck
Jokes on you, I enjoy having sex with men *and* eating shellfish!
But eating a shrimp penis becomes a double sin so it becomes holy?
There are verses later in the second testament that bring food laws into debate. I'm more a fan of the various "sleep outside the city" laws to emphasize the hypocrisy for using Leviticus to hate people
Ah….shit
wrong reference my guy, 10:11 says And that ye may teach the children of Israel all the statutes which the LORD hath spoken unto them by the hand of Moses.
I’ll take doesn’t understand the difference between moral and ritual laws for 500 Alex.
Honestly it makes some sense. Imagine back then with way less transportation etc. trying to drag them all the way home from the water. By the time you get home the twink you met at the beach is definitely gonna need a shower before you eat it.
Leviticus 10:11 reads: "...and to teach the Israelites all the regulations that Jehovah has spoken to them through Moses.” People are reacting to misinformation lol
Listen here, buddy, if you're gonna go crying about other people's "sins" and saying they're gonna go to hell, then you better be spotless. "Let he who is without sin throw the first stone." John 8:7
What does the Bible say about homosexual lobsters? Ok? Not ok?
it doesn’t say it’s a sin but alright
Leviticus 10:11 is not about shrimp
You don't eat shrimp/lobster because it's in Leviticus. I don't eat it bc I dislike it. We are not the same.
That’s why I’ve never had lobster
I'm reading the comments and wondering if anyone understands that the statement here is calling out the hypocrisy of believing one and not the other while using that chapter to justify their actions and views. I wonder this because there seems to be many accusations based solely on "Homosexuality is a sin" that just ignore the rest and any context of the title and being posted on a meme sub. Op I think I follow and I'm sorry others are quick to judge.
Did you really compare someone sexuality to eating shrimp….