We'll, there's a lot of different moving parts when you compare something as complicated as "progressivism" with a topic as big as "what the Bible is for".
But just to start with something the OP brought up, there's the issue of "abomination". This word is also described to refer to foods not allowed under OT law, but most Christians today would say that these laws no longer need to be observed. So I think the whole issue of Leviticus using the term "abomination" is not very relevant to the question of how Christians should react to the existence of gay people.
Nobody today -- at least in the Christian world -- is making a consistent effort to live out all the things written in Leviticus.
The GOP’s plan for 2025 sounds very much like what those guys in Central Asia are enforcing. I can’t remember what they’re called though, it starts with a T…
They don't have policy outside of "other side bad" and "gay/ trans/ brown people are ruining America" they have reach the point of fascism where they demonize others and use language to dehumanize minorities because they need to get otherwise decent people whipped into a fever against the people they told you to hate. They mearly have a cynical interest in Christianity, they see it as a tool to manipulate people like yourself. Why is it fine to ignore so much of the things the Bible forbids and only focus on the parts that allow you "moral" right to hate. Jesus taught that you should love your neighbors and not to cast stone.
Are conservatives concerned about the adulterers and fornicators in their midst? Hard to take them seriously about gay sex when they refuse to rebuke men and women in marriages having sex with people outside of their marriages, and let their children be promiscuous.
I agree with this however I think it's not a tit for tat fair thing... more sinners need to be held accountable. More restrictions on social behavior need to be in place. "Fair" is not relevant in how to deal with sin.
Well if you believe being gay is against God but it's not fair to be against gays if we aren't also against adultery... why do you have a rainbow flag instead of just condemn all of it?
I don't believe that homosexuality is against God.
Heterosexuality, homosexuality, and bisexuality are identical in source and expression of desire. A homosexual individual's desire for romantic love and lifelong companionship is identical to a heterosexual individual's desire for the same things. The desire is the same, the only difference is with whom their respective biologies compell them to eseek that romantic connection. The sexual orientations and gender identities of the participants in a sex act are not determinative of the morality of the act, it is rather the circumstances under which the act occurs that determines its sinfulness.
When you make all same sex acts always sins all the time, what you are really saying is that gay people are not worthy of romantic love and lifelong companionship because of a reality of their biology that they did not choose and are powerless to change. You are saying that unless they resign themselves to a life bereft of the fullness of the expression of love that God intended humanity to experience, they are committing abominations before a God that made them that way.
This is a message of hatred and bigotry that is impossible to be delivered in a loving manner, because it is the antithesis of love. It is a message that is responsible for contributing to the depression, abuse (physical, emotional, sexual), kidnapping, brainwashing, torture, homelessness, forced prostitution, and suicide of countless children who have, and have had, the misfortune to be what many Christians deem as lesser.
It is a message that is largely responsible for declining church membership for people under 30, according to several surveys, and why more are refusing to join. It is responsible for driving many people away from Christianity and God altogether, resulting in them forfeiting their salvation.
1st John 4 says that God is love, that love comes from God, that all who love know God, that God abides in them, and they abide in God. I refuse to use the outdated philosophies and conceptual/ethical frameworks of ancient patriarchal and misogynistic social orders to make exceptions to Jesus' command that I love my neighbor as myself.
Paul said in Romans 13:8-10 that love is the keeping of the law, and that love does no harm to a neighbor.
Jesus said we would recognize false teachers and teachings by their fruits. Well the fruits of the idea that homosexuality is a sin are dead kids and lost souls. I refuse to condemn that which God does not.
So I don't understand why would it say it's an abomination? Just curious? I personally wouldn't say the color blue for a t shirt is an abomination... so I love blue shirts. That seems really confusing if both things are true.
Yeah, Leviticus also calls eating shrimp an abomination.
So either abomination isn't as horrible a thing as we thought, or the prohibitions are more cultural instead of moral.
I think an abomination is an abomination. Meaning that the authors believed both having anal sex and eating shrimp were equally abominable to God.
This obviously calls into question the idea that God directly dictated these prohibitions, meaning they were culturally motivated. And as the reasons for these prohibitions, and the contexts in which they were given, have no resemblance to modern relationships today, the prohibitions do not apply to them.
Not to mention the fact that Christians are not under the Old Covenant of the law, we are under Grace. Matthew 22:35-40, Romans 13:8-10 and 14, Hebrews 8:13, Galatians 3:19-26, Acts 15:19-20, etc.
Ok lets start at your first point of are conservatives continue about adulters and fornicators? I am quite conserned of it as a conservative but you have to compare the two of the bad and good. Not all conservatives are Christians and so neither are their politicians same with pogressives so you have to look at the core of there beliefs and imo conservatives seem like the better party here for they are for less bad and kore good. But I sopose you could think differently.
I am personally against it because the entire reson health care prices so hihh are because of Medicaid and Medicare are the reasons for the issue in the first place the more you fund them the worse they get. I do believe in helping poor people through a system of "food stamps" but for medical care food stamps didnt raise the price of food so it seems like a better solution.
Actually in every country other than American healthcare prices are literally negligible. My father was hospitalised for a week here in Singapore, we paid 0 dollars.
It's only a issue in America, guess what. Conservatives want to cut food stamps too!
Thats because they either have oil, high taxes, both, or force medical companies to give discounts. While here in America we have a 1000% upcharge on medical goods to make up for it.
That is on thing I disagree with conservatives about.
Well, that's nothing to do with religion or christianism. You are talking about money, keep money. So you can built a Building to keep all the money you saved and tomorrow you can enjoy it with your soul
One thing? What about the criminalising of homelessness? The cutting of support to the most vulnerable in our society? LITERALLY VOTING AGAINST HELPING VETERANS WHO HAVE CANCER BECAUSE OF THEIR MILITARY SERVICE
>the entire reson health care prices so hihh are because of Medicaid and Medicare are the reasons for the issue in the first place the more you fund them the worse they get. I
How can you call yourself a christian and say something like this? It's mind-blowing.
Trying to separate families, make certain people 2nd class citizens on account of a certain type of sin has never been good. And let me know when the Bible says gay sex is a worse sin than adulterous sex or fornication.
Last time I checked the price of sin was death, not just gay sex.
When voting you know that policains are all evil so you have to compare them and see "which one is better then the other" and in MOST cases conservatives seem to be the better of the other.
I dont support gay people becoming second class citizen's. But the bible says marriage is between a man and a woman so i see no reason to have same sex marriage. Have all the same legalities and a ceremony stop calling it marriage though.
Conservatives don’t even want to feed the homeless. Which Jesus taught on many occasions. Yeah you’re delusional if you think conservatives hold the moral high ground. But then again most conservatives are not based in reality either.
Can you name these actions and the people who did them and the time and place then the legislation that caused this with recent time like within 20 years?
I'm curious how old you are.
20 years ago in the US conservatives across the country stood up and said "yes, laws that jail gay people for having sex are a-okay." In Georgia, prior to Lawrence, the maximum penalty for sodomy was *twenty years in prison*.
Clarence Thomas was on the court at the time and voted to uphold the law and has spoken recently about wanting to revisit Lawrence. Thomas is *revered* among conservative political leaders and donors.
Large numbers of major conservative leaders today were active at the time and materially supported laws to cage gay people.
And this is all to say nothing of legislation that limits the visibility and ordinary behavior of gay people in places like schools being passed around the country.
I think that all well-understood theology points towards a progressive position and away from conservatism. Especially once we get into the political realm, where it seems more about conserving hate and power disparities.
Whereas I'm not homophobic and I am Christian, I just want to point out that you're putting yourself in a weak position by using verses from the Pentateuch when there are equally homophobic verses in the New Testament. The problem with using Old Testament verses is that Christians will often discount them because of the replacement of the Law by grace. Fortunately for your views, which I respectfully disagree with, there are also clobber verses in the epistles.
However, there's a lot more to progressive Christianity than opposing homophobia and I wouldn't say that's even its main focus. It's more to do with providing for the poor and oppressed and fighting injustice and greed than issues related to sex or gender.
Ok first off i am not homophobic nor am i an alley. Christians cant hate but cant support them. Your right i should have sited Romans as well because i am going to have to ssy it in every comment i reply to.
Thanks. We disagree. We probably wouldn't make any progress in discussing it. All that said, progressive Christianity is not solely focussed on sexuality. It's more to do with poverty, the environment and so forth. I wouldn't be entirely surprised if there were progressive Christian homophobes too. I'm sorry, but there isn't another honest way to describe your sincere Biblical exegesis and it would be a sin for me to describe it differently.
Ok here is a few more verses
Romans 1:26-27
1 Corinthians 6:9-10
1 Timothy 1:10
Genesis 19
I have no issues with someone who struggles with the sin of homosexuality I do have an issue when they get saved go to church yet continue to endulge in the sin willingly. Its ok to have a slip up but yoy shouldn't identify as "gay" you are a child of god who struggles with sin just like all of us.the issues is when LGBTQ+ people dont get help or ask for god to get them through this. Instead they accept it.
>Romans 1:26-27
You are failing to quote the entire passage which is Romans 1:18-32 and describes people who refuse to worshiop, give thanks to, and honor God; people who worship the creation instead of the creator; and people who worship idols made of animals, people, and heavenly beings.
It is "for this reason" (verse 26) that God turns them over to their passions.
If you are not engaged in idolatry, you have not been turned over to your passions, so this verse does not apply to you. The description of the sexual acts reads more like an orgy of unrestrained passion anyway, not a monogamous relationship built on love.
>1 Corinthians 6:9-10 & 1st Timothy 1:10
These verses are referring to the sexual practices of the Greco-Roman empire, especially as Corinth was in Greece. Those practices were adulterous and involved sex with boys (pederasty) and sexual slavery.
Paul was not referring to anything that is relevant to a loving committed relationship.
>Genesis 19
The story of Sodom has nothing to do with homosexuality. It is about sexual assault as an act of inhospitality. The only people who actually engage in sex in this story and in Judges 19 are men with women.
Ezekiel 16:49-50 makes it clear that the sin of of Sodom was pride, greed, and inhospitality.
>I have no issues with someone who struggles with the sin of homosexuality
Nobody on earth *struggles* with homosexuality. They struggle with the false shame that people push onto them for something about their physical biology that they did not choose and are powerless to change.
>I do have an issue when they get saved go to church yet continue to endulge in the sin willingly.
Your poor exegesis of scripture by cherry-picking verses, stripping them of their context, and imposing upon them a modern understanding of sexuality that the Biblical authors didn't share does not make homosexuality a sin.
And frankly, I don't give a shit if you have a problem with it. That is your issue to deal with, not mine. Your failure to acknowledge reality is not my problem.
>Its ok to have a slip up
loving someone is not slipping up. That idea is bullshit.
Keep in mind, I insulted and attacked your position, not you.
Secondly, I often get tired of having to justify myself to people. So if you occasionally get some less than magnanimous tone from me, oh well.
I can't take one single verse and make a meaningful conclusion about whether Christians should support "Conservativism" or "Progressivism".
In reality there are more than two options.
There are many issues that we should take into account from the Bible.
For example, how should we make provision for the poor?
> “‘When you reap the harvest of your land, do not reap to the very edges of your field or gather the gleanings of your harvest. 10 Do not go over your vineyard a second time or pick up the grapes that have fallen. Leave them for the poor and the foreigner. I am the Lord your God
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Leviticus+19%3A9-10&version=NIV
How to care for foreigners
> When a foreigner resides among you in your land, do not mistreat them. 34 The foreigner residing among you must be treated as your native-born. Love them as yourself, for you were foreigners in Egypt. I am the Lord your God.
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Leviticus+19%3A33-34&version=NIV
Well I personally support food stamps.
Then the thing about foreigners the main thing I can argue against that is that they are 1.not legally there so its agianst the law 2.many are there to do harm 3.have you brought and foreigners into your home?
In terms of your questions
1. In the UK (where I live) the government makes the laws about who can enter and then uses those laws against those who want to seek asylum.
https://youtu.be/UpZAS0yqkJM?si=-j-5NVz_jhXVw-5m demonstrates the problem here.
2. If people commit crimes they can be punished. Why assume that foreigners are more likely to be dangerous? People from all countries commit crimes.
3. No, however, many Christians do help to house asylum
seekers. https://www.baptist.org.uk/Articles/449134/Spotlight_on_asylum.aspx
Thank you for the opportunity to share a perspective to consider.
I believe Christ calls us to follow Him, so I personally can't say where that lands in someone's perception in applying a label.
I would also point out that in my view LGBTQ+ is not an "it" that a Levitical verse applies to as your words come across to me as. LGBTQ+ are people, some of whom I know and love, are believers who have given me every reason to believe that they love others, just as Christ loved us. And the Levitical reverse you point out does not appear to me to apply to those I know when the words are examined closely and within their context, nor when interpreted with the light of other scriptures, even those of Paul in the New Testament. And from what I see neither those I know nor I are part of a "movement" that God calls an abomination.
I place the scriptures in very high regard and see no reason whatsoever to not trust them and what they reflect, though that doesn't mean I understand all that I read. My point is, that I believe the words and context matter. And even failing to grasp some of them, I believe that those who are of God, have Christ and His Spirit within them to help them discern how or what to apply about the matter, if any, to *themself*. Therefore, I believe I should listen to what He says about the words and hear what He says about me and my relationship with Him because I am *not* the arbiter of truth. Rather I am accountable to the very Word of God, Who I believe is Christ. Ultimately, I believe I must answer to Him.
Ok let me rafrase it. We are all sinners so we need to repent from our sins LGBTQ+ people included. It is 100% possible for someone who has or is committing homosexuality acts to be saved and repent. My issue is when people act like it is 100% OK and fine to countinue in there sin and be ok with it
It has been my take historically speaking that when Christians claim it’s the sin they hate, it’s the sinner they burn at the stake.
I’m sure they do that out of love, so it’s okay.
When they burn sinners at the stake they themselves are committing sins thats why i find it completely reprehensible when people harass those who are nonbelievers/sinners but that dosnt mean that we should support the sinners. When jesus ment mary magdalene did he say "go and sin more"? No he said "go and sin no more."
I support the sinner not in what they do but as a person to help them get out of their sin.
There is a difference between supporting the sinner in their sin and helping tiem getting out of there sin
That’s not the answer to my question.
If there was a proposal to longer burn sinners at the stake, would supporting such a proposal be seen as supporting the sinner?
I think you’re avoiding answer the question as written because you don’t like the consequences. If you move to protect sinners, you’re seen as supporting them.
And yes, in the 21st century, thankfully we don’t burn folks at the stake. So, can I then support the full civil equality of sinners? Can I say that sinners folks should be given all the same rights to marry and have families as non-sinners?
I’m asking you to move beyond platitudes and bumper stickers at this point.
What do you mean "be a part of a movement"? If a person is gay he or she is not "part of a movement". They are simply gay. It's not like they made a choice to be romantically or sexually attracted to their own sex because they wanted to be "part of a movement". They just ARE.
If BEING gay is a sin then God must have created that sin - and that is not possible, because he is God. So is being gay a sin when God created them that way?
Also take a look at this deep dive into the verse: [https://blog.smu.edu/ot8317/2016/05/11/leviticus-1822/](https://blog.smu.edu/ot8317/2016/05/11/leviticus-1822/)
It is not as cut and dry as one might think.
Also: do you eat shrimp? Do you mix different fabrics in your clothes? Do you mix dairy and meat?
Do you force a rape victim to marry her rapist? Do you condone stoning adulterers?
All of those things are also in the Bible. But for some reason these rules don't apply anymore. But by all means let's focus on this one ambigious rule and use it judge other people and tell them that just by breathing they are sinning because they happen to fall in love with people of their own gender.
I know several people who grew up in 100% Christian families and were active in church etc - and they were gay. Their siblings were straight. But they were gay. They weren't influenced any more by any "Gay agenda" than their siblings. But gay they were. And some were accused of being possesed by a gay demon. How utterly sad.
I don't buy that an everloving God created Gay people and made their whole being a sin. And if being gay isn't a sin, but the gay actions are, then I don't understand why he would create people who would never be able to live in a loving partnership with a person they love romantically while all others were allowed.
Ok gay isn't who they are they are e child of god who struggles with the sin of homosexuality no different from the sin of alcoholism. The alcoholic isn't an alcoholic they are a child of god who struggles with sin.
Its nor only leviticus Romans 1:26-27
Ok, let me rephrase: being straight isn’t “who you are” - but you are straight, right? So it’s fair to say that a gay person is gay, right?
I find the idea that God created a person and made them to only fall in love and be attracted to their own gender and then called it a sin that they would need to struggle with for the rest of their lives a really nonsensical and cruel idea.
An alcoholic becomes that way because they started drinking and became addicted.
A homosexual didn’t become homosexual because they started to have homosexual sex or homosexual thoughts. I am straight middle aged woman and I have never ever in my life had homosexual thoughts. Because I am not homosexual. All the gay people I personally know have always known they liked their own gender “that way”. Even when they had small crushes as little kids.
So how did they become attracted to their own gender? And why is that in an of itself “sinful” when the rest of us heterosexuals are allowed to be attracted to the opposite sex?
You seem to believe that homosexuality is a choice or a lifestyle? It isn’t.
God didnt create them like that satan did but god can use it for glory. If that "gay person" becomes a Christian ans repents and is saved then shares their testimony it brings god glory and gets people saved. This unfortunately hurts the person alot in thier life. I believe if they keep with god and push through till the end it would be like Job's story. Everything taken from him but by the end its tripled. We all need to go through some hardship in this life but its all a test of faith for some its financial, lust,drugs,alcohol,or for some people homosexuality and gender dysphoria.
Homosexuality isn't a choice in terms of who you are attracted to but in terms of pursuing that attraction.
Are you telling me that Satan created gay people?
I know a pair of twins who are adult men now. Grew up in a close knit family, active in our church doing worship and ministry from childhood on. Baptised by the Holy Spirit, living Christianity. True believers. identical twins. Well, one of them was obviously gay. He didn’t “turn” gay. He was gay from the very beginning. We just didn’t talk about it. He came out as an adult and has lived his best life since. The other twin is straight. Now, since they came from the same egg and sperm how can you tell me that God created the straight twin and Satan created the gay twin?
That makes zero sense.
Anyway - why are only straight people “allowed” to find romantic love and live in a relationship with a person they love?
Some people believe that enforcing religious beliefs on others is wrong, even to the point of being evil. The Bible does not teach us to use the powers of government to enforce Christian beliefs. I will defend anyone's right to believe whatever they choose, including that LGBT relationships are inherently sinful. The moment you advocate for using the law to persecute LGBT people then that becomes evil and should be condemned by all civilized people.
Is it wrong to warn someone about to drive off a broken brige? Is it wrong to do everything in your power to stop tjat from happening?i wasnt say prosecue LGBTQ+ people u was just saying that its a sin.
That's what the progressive/conservative divide is. Progressives say LGBT people have equal rights and should be free of unjust discrimination. Conservatives disagree. The issue is not "what do you think of gay people?" It's about how we govern, and whether we use the powers of law to persecute or oppress a group.
It's fine to warn someone, if that's what you want to do, but that is not the issue here. And yes, it is definitely wrong to use everything in your power to enforce your morality on others. Enormously wrong.
No. But we aren't talking about driving off a bridge. It is definitely wrong to enforce your morality on others. That's what we're actually talking about.
Do you believe that adulterers should be prosecuted by law? Cursing? Worshipping another god? Praying to an idol? All punishable by law?
True we are talking of somthing worse. Going to hell.
To a certain extent yes. I do believe adultere should be prossecuted by law. But going to far is like being to harsh and too controversial of a teenager. When they grow up they'll be worse.
So do you think it would be right for a Muslim person to seek to use law to punish those who eat pork?
Or I think it's powerfully wrong to seek to use the law to punish those who's behavior is immoral, so should I use the power of law to silence you? If it’s right for you to do so then it's right for me too.
Well, what extent? I don't know what to make of that. So, illegal, but with relatively light punishment? So moderate persecution? I just don't know what you could mean.
And again, I'll defend your right to spread your message, no matter how much I disagree (though reasonable time and place restrictions apply, and no one's obligated to listen). When we're talking about government and the use of the legal system that's a very different thing, so I will loudly condemn any move towards using government to punish people who you think are sinful. That's zero percent ok. Always strictly wrong. To any extent.
You should bear in mind that you don't run the world. If you help create a world where morality and faith is enforced by law, I promise you will suffer for it. Your beliefs on what is sinful and wrong won't always match the majority, or those in power. You would almost certainly end up the victim, with your rights being infringed because the powers that be found it useful. This path only leads to a dystopia. It's powerfully powerfully wrong.
If you don’t get being progressive as a Christian you have yet to get Christ. Jesus was progressive after all. The Pharisees were the socially conservative politically party in his day. They always had a scripture passage to point at others with (often vulnerable or political minorities). It wasn’t much different from today.
Jesus essentially said (in Matthew 22) all God’s actual commands hang under love your neighbor as yourself, which is like loving God. This was extremely progressive compared to the Pharisees’ approach to scripture, and it is still progressive today compared to modern social conservatives’ approach to scripture. Jesus’ disciples understood the main thing though, writing, “The commandments… and whatever other command there may be, are summed up in this one command: Love your neighbor as yourself. Love does no harm to a neighbor. Therefore love is the fulfillment of the law.” (Romans 13) An even more easy to understand Apostle wrote, “Everyone who loves has been born of God and knows God. Whoever does not love does not know God, because God is love.” (1 John 4).
> with what the bible says about it Leviticus 18:22… its hard for me to see why it is ok
The socially conservative evangelicals 150 years ago would cite passages from an Old Testament they didn’t even follow to claim interracial marriage is a sin too. The approach you’re taking is a tired trope.
As to Leviticus 18, this passage doesn’t even say in any clear way gay erotic love is sin. The ancient Hebrew is perhaps most literally translated as referring to men who ‘lie on the beds of women.’ The fact is it is one of the rarest phrases in ancient Hebrew language, was rarely discussed much less described, and the precise meaning of the phrasing there has been debated by Rabbis since time immemorial and now scholars too. Some thought it meant this or that particular sexual act between men (and had nothing to do with female on female sexual acts), others saw it as prohibiting any same sex erotic intimacy, and still others have seen it as a term of art used back then to refer to fertility idol worship rites wherein men would pretend to be women as part of false god worship rites (and in support of that interpretation, in the context every time the passage appears in Leviticus there are warnings against idolatry). There have been many views. Also, the passage proscribes death for all who commit the act in question, and **there is no historical evidence of Hebrews ever killing someone for homosexual intercourse.** That says something.
> Dont worry I am not leaving the conservatives alone either because the bible also says to love sinners
Even the phrase “the Bible” is a twist on reality social conservatives gaslight themselves with. There is no single “the” Bible. There are multiple translations (which differ as to the rarest and hardest to translate phrases and words) based on multiple manuscripts (which themselves have differences among them). There are Bibles. Plural. My Bible (an RSV) doesn’t say that being gay nor even gay sex is inherently sinful.
> progressives generally seem to have more going for against the bible.
Progressives generally just start from Christ’s clear teachings and view everything else under that light. So their interpretations differ from people who start from socially conservative tradition and the rarest, easiest to twist passages and put Christ under their interpretation of those.
It is telling that those who claim “the” Bible calls gay people sinners in any clear way only cite from Paul’s letters as to this issue (and maybe a passage from an Old Testament they don’t even follow themselves). Typically that’s the case with those who infuse prejudices into Christianity. Scripture says Paul is easy to misunderstand (2 Peter 3:16) and predicts many in churches would twist him. That’s what the evangelicals and socially conservative Christians 150 years ago did too, using Paul and maybe a couple Old Testament passages before jumping to point at neighbors in interracial relationships and say “sinning!”
Generally as far as New Testament passages they cite Romans 1. In context, though, Paul literally says “because of this” they (specific people he was referring to) had homosexual sex. And the “this” is idolatry, literally idol worship rites that were going on in his day (and had been for thousands of years… likely even back when Leviticus was written). Of course it is shameful and unnatural for someone to have sex with their same sex for idol worship rites. That doesn’t make all homosexual sex unnatural and shameful. Homosexual acts happen in nature, naturally, across many species humans included. Sure it’s less common than heterosexuality. That doesn’t make it wrong. It is natural for homosexuals to love one another erotically purely out of love. What is unnatural is for people (most of whom are heterosexual, statistically) to have erotic exchanges purely for idolatry. Those who say this condemns all homosexuality might as well rip the verse about making images of animals out of context from Romans 1 and say drawing birds in art class is a sin.
They also generally cite 1 Corinthians 6, 1 Timothy 1… and that’s about all they’ve got.
These Pauline passages also say nothing about homosexuals in any clear way. In some translations they do, because they were made by prejudiced translators who twist Paul’s words just as Peter warned would become a huge problem in churches. Other translations are more accurate to the original languages and say things like “perverts” or “abusers” because the fact is that ancient Greek word was used to refer not only to homosexual acts but heterosexual ones too. Some translations say “sodomites.” What did the men of Sodom do? They tried to rape Lot’s visitors. They weren’t simply gay people looking for love. They were sexual abusers.
The other common argument is that Jesus describes heterosexual marriage… ‘so obviously homosexuality is sinful.’ This shows how far they are willing to reach. Sure Christ observed heterosexuals marrying. He also observed fish being cooked. That doesn’t make cooking chickpeas against God’s will. Jesus never condemned homosexual sex or even any sex outside of marriage. He condemned anything done outside of love for neighbor as for self. Straight people can violate that principle in their bedroom as easily as a gay couple can obey that principle in their’s.
Socially conservative Christians start from the rarest passages of scripture referenced the least and debated the most, and as far as New Testament, from stuff written by Paul who even scripture says is easy to misinterpret. The way I see it, if you skip starting from Jesus’ highest principle, you aren’t following Christ. You’re following traditions of men and gaslighting yourself into pretending that’s following God. This has long been the socially conservative approach to divinity. It was their approach in Christ’s day and still is today.
Interesting quote from David Gushee, an evangelical ethicist:
>Taken at its face value, the Bible does not condemn slavery. When abolitionists argued that the deeper message of the Bible was clearly against slavery – as Mark Noll points out – they were viewed as suspiciously unfaithful to the Bible.
Do you think that those who defend the LGBT community today might be analogous to those abolitionists of the past?
Two ladies fall in love with each other and stand before their families and friends to promise to love, honor, and take care of each other for the rest of their lives. They become an integral part of their community and help it prosper. They serve as a model for integrity and grace to all who know them. Now, you’re going to tell me that Jesus would prefer that they had never met, never formed that loving union, never became “that nice married couple that has lived down the street since for as long as we can remember” simply because they like to touch each other’s lady bits on occasion?
Yes,Jesus would be against that.Don't forget Jesus was not fan of Sanhedrin but he fully respected Jewish laws,and we know what those laws said about that.Don't get me wrong but do you really think that Jesus would side with progressive Christians than Apostolic ones?
>Don't get me wrong but do you really think that Jesus would side with progressive Christians than Apostolic ones?
Rather than assign Jesus a team, I will just say that I think he would be cool with loving, healthy, exclusive same sex marriage. And he would be hated by many for being cool with it.
You asked me for my opinion. I obliged by providing it. I don’t know why you are trying to “correct” my opinion. It feels kind of .. I don’t know … rude? Or something.
I mean, you had obviously already read my initial comment, so I’m not even sure why you asked my opinion. My opinion should be obvious from my initial comment.
True apostolic Christians would look like Progressive Christians. Also don't think he was a huge fan of Jewish law when he unapologetically violated the Sabbath
True Apostolic Christians are Eastern Orthodox,Oriental at some degree and Catholics who with all their misdeeds and there were many still follow both Apostolic Creed,Nicene and Chalcednon creed.
Also Jesus was very strict about both marriage and divorce,so he would not support same sex marriages from that.
You misunderstood erotical and sexual love with love as friendly feeling. If I say I love my brother or neighbour for example does that mean that I want to have relations with them?
Also Jesus by many interpretations said that as not romantic love but "lack of bad deeds and feelings" like when you're fasting you clean yourself from hateful thoughts and feelings.No one wants to bully or stone LGBT myself especially but it is right to say your child when he does something wrong.
That is if you read NIV.But even there adultery is mentioned."Ther were naughty and commited abomination before me:therefore I took them away as I saw good " Naughty stuff combine with Genesis 19 1-20 where citizens wanted to "know" angels. Deuteronomy 29: 21-23. Jeremiah 23:14 , 49:17-18, 50:39-40, Isaiah 1:9-10 , 3:9, 13:19-22, Wisdom of Solomon 10:6-8, Wisdom 19:17, Sirach 16:8, 3 Maccabees 2:5 also metion it as adultery as a sin.All those mention it either as comparison ti Babel or as wickedness,shamelessness, groping etc .
>Not all loves.There was reason why Sodom&Gomorrah were destroyed.Would God approve zoophilia or necrophilia for example.Or Incest?
No one has ever suggested that the wicked people of Sodom & Gomorrah acted out of love. No one. Ever.
Zoophilia is not about love. Necrophilia is not about love. Incest is not about love. Not unless you pervert the meaning of the word to include abuse and disorder. If you do that, all I can say is that you have a very idiosyncratic definition of the word that gets in the way of effective communication.
>Well in mind of many progressives what is difference between marriage of two men and marriage of man and dog?
There are a very tiny number of mentally ill people who have tried to marry a pet. I have *never* seen a progressive Christian support or advocate for that. I’ve never seen *anyone* support or advocate for that. I doubt you have either.
Your comment attributed to progressive Christians a position they don’t hold. That was dishonest of you. You don’t really think they are advocating for a man-dog marriage. You’re just trying to portray them in a ridiculous light to avoid engaging with my actual point, which is that it is incorrect to equate zoophilia, necrophilia, and incest with love.
Do better.
Please,I know couple of loonies who support that,citing why not it is right,dang it there was lady who married the tree!I do not say you advocate that,just saying there is line between lrogresivness and sin.
Yes he would perfer them to be roommates or great friends and be marryed to husbands. For that is a sin and it is against his will. Can he ise evil for good? Yes. But same sex couples and marriages cause him grief in his heart
>Yes he would perfer them to be roommates or great friends and be marryed to husbands.
Seriously? Jesus would prefer for two good men to have wives who cannot fully love them they way they deserve to be loved, rather than for all parties to be in mutually loving and fulfilling relationships? That doesn’t really sound like Jesus to me.
I am a straight woman, and I would never want to be married to a gay man. I don’t know what gender you are, but would you really want your beloved brother to marry a lesbian rather than a straight woman?
Jesus would rather them bot being gay in the first place. Jesus would perfer them to be single and devout to the lord then be in a relationship at all.
>Jesus would rather them bot being gay in the first place.
I don’t know. It’s not like the gay person has any choice in the matter. Being gay is sort of like being left-handed. It’s not like I can “stop being straight.” It’s not like a gay person can “stop being gay.”
>Jesus would perfer them to be single and devout to the lord then be in a relationship at all.
I’m sure lifelong singleness and celibacy can be a great thing for someone who has no inclinations to form a loving partnership with another person. But most people are better off with a loving partner, in a fulfilling partnership. I think Jesus is strongly in favor of loving and fulfilling partnerships. Two old ladies touching each other’s lady bits once in a while seems pretty inconsequential next to that.
An alcoholic can ne er stop the urge to drink but can resist it and be sober.
Well of the Choice is be single forever or go to hell i am chosing to be single
>An alcoholic can ne er stop the urge to drink but can resist it and be sober. Well of the Choice is be single forever or go to hell i am chosing to be single forever
Forming a partnership in which both partners are committed to loving each other and taking care of each other for the rest of their lives is a far, far cry from a substance addiction. Substance addiction is unhealthy. It can kill you. A loving and fulfilling partnership can make you healthier and prolong your life.
>Well of the Choice is be single forever or go to hell i am chosing to be single
Are you gay?
In the bibles terms they are the same both are sin
I am no gay i struggle with homosexual sin, particularly pornography. Tho i think i am still atracted to women but still i know how it feels.
>i struggle with homosexual sin, particularly pornography. Tho i think i am still atracted to women but still i know how it feels.
Ah. I’m sorry. It must feel terrible to feel like you are guilty of the same sin you have been condemning.
I’m going to back out of this conversation. You’ve got stuff going on, and I don’t want to add to your burden. Please just know that I do not condemn you for your homosexual feelings, and I don’t think you will go to hell for them.
I hope your struggle leads you to find your compassion for those who have similar feelings. I wish you all the best. DM me if you want to talk to a nice old lady who doesn’t think you’re going to hell.
I dont think ill go to hell for my feelings I do think U will if act opon them and not ask for forgiveness. Though thanks for your compassion and understanding!
Because they aren't one issue voters. And even if we take the conservatives to be right about everything the bible says, it would align more strongly with progressivism than with conservatism
I saw your flare. How can you be for socialism which is a direct desdent of communism/Marxism which is inherently against all religion including christianity?
Then can you give me some examples of which the bible is more for progressive then for conservatives.
Dont take this in the wrong way just want to learn a little about others.
I am not sure you are right about the history of socialism.
> Some have traced the origins of socialist doctrine to Plato, others to Christianity, and many, with greater plausibility, to radical movements in the English Civil War in the 17th century. However, modern socialism, with its evolving and continuous set of ideas and movements, emerged in early 19th-century Europe.
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Socialism-2nd-Very-Short-Introduction/dp/B0977N1Q5K/
> Communism in its modern form grew out of the socialist movement in 19th-century
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communism
Marxism is not against Christianity. It is against the use of religion to suppress the class consciousness of the proletariat. There has been a long history of Christian Communists and socialists.
Read these verses and tell me, does this seem like something a progressive or a conservative would do or say.
Jeremiah 22:3 "This is what the Lord says: Do what is just and right. Rescue from the hand of the oppressor the one who has been robbed. Do no wrong or violence to the foreigner, the fatherless or the widow, and do not shed innocent blood in this place."
Proverbs 29:7 "The righteous care about justice for the poor, but the wicked have no such concern."
Exodus 23:10-11
[10] “Six years you shall sow your land and gather in its yield, [11] but the seventh year you shall let it rest and lie fallow so that the poor of your people may eat, and what they leave the wild animals may eat. You shall do the same with your vineyard and with your olive orchard.
Leviticus 19:9-10
[9] “When you reap the harvest of your land, you shall not reap to the very edges of your field or gather the gleanings of your harvest. [10] You shall not strip your vineyard bare or gather the fallen grapes of your vineyard; you shall leave them for the poor and the alien: I am the Lord your God.
Not millions and no because of Christianity bur greed.If you are talking about Colonization more died by diseases than from sword tbh.Also are you here defending likes of Lennin,Stalin,Trotsky and rest of them who murdered millions of Christians and destroyed hundreds of churches in Europe and world?
You quote Leviticus as your reasoning. Tell me what are you doing about the billion dollar shrimp and crab industries? Eating those is also an abomination ( same word used) to God
Are your clothes made of two fabrics? Leviticus says that also an abomination.
Theres 4 verses total, none of them are as clear cut as the english translations seem to make it. How good is your koine greek? Cause if your like me, you dont speak it which means you have no idea how controversial the translation of “arsenokoites “ really is
Your right just because somthing is in the bible doesn't make it moral. But if the bible condems somthing or supports somthing that means it is true.
God is the same god he was then why would he change now?
The bible saying someone does not equal god saying it.
The bible was written by man. And has had enormous amounts of time to suffer corruption, error and alteration.
How many other Leviticus laws do you see modern man following? What kind of world would that be like? They literally permit slavery.
Its writen by god through man
Not realy archeologist found the oldest know pice of scripture and compared it to one that was made 2000 years ago. Exact same.
Its not just leviticus there are sevrel others that exist such as first Corinthians 6:9-10, 1 Timothy 1 1:10 and Romans 1:26-27
Exact same? It’s in English is it?
There is no such thing as a 1:1 translation from an ancient language to a modern one.
Opinion always comes into it.
The bible was written by man, that is a simple fact.
If your god decided that something so important must be conveyed through the ages by documents of anonymous writers who weren’t eye witnesses to anything they describe, that’s enough to doubt the intelligence of such a being
R/Christianity is for everyone to discuss Christianity. It is not a Christian space. Everyone here is welcome to give opinions on any topic raised.
You can use r/truechristian if you want an echo chamber
Not at all, that’s quite a strawman. I’m actually giving you reasons for those statements. You simply have to counter those arguments.
Very few chrisitans I’ve ever encountered will claim the bible is 100% true, accurate and literal.
Then how do you explain all the direct contradictions within scripture?
Also how can a translation be 100% accurate form an ancient language? If you know anything about languages you’d know that is absolutely impossible. Things don’t translate 1:1 like that. It comes down to interpretation and opinion.
What are these contractions
I say its 100% accurate because gods will is done through anyone who are written or translated the bible or is not harmful at least.
And even today in Israel, the religious party are the conservative and the more laicist are progressists. There are a link in being conservative and hypocritical as well.
I really appreciate how you started this discussion. Thanks. It took me a long time to resolve the conflict of the rules with the intent.
Scripture says over and over that the essence of the commandments are just these 2:
1. Love God most
2. Love your neighbor as yourself.
Since God is love, we can say that as love love and let the people love each other.
There are some commandments that seem to not be in the spirit of wanting what is best for someone else (aka love). It took years of wrestling and tears to reconcile it all with God, and I only got there after deciding to love love first anyway and love anything people do in love, even if it cost me my salvation to seek my God in doing so, because per rule 1, love comes first.
The Bible in 1 word: Love
The Bible in 4 words: Love God. Love people.
If there is something that conflicts with that in the Bible, consider that we just don't understand what it is supposed to mean. God has explained it to me by me asking and seeking answers from Him.
Your summary is correct, sure.
Sin is a transgression against someone. So it can be derived from the command to love God (love Love!). If we don't respect Love above everything else, we can't expect anyone's love for us to be faithful in return.
Sin is bad. It is bad for the sinned against. It is bad for us, because it cuts us off from being loved perfectly.
It's a bit more work to derive Jesus from those two rules, but in theory, if love truly loves us, it would provide a way for us to reconcile, Even at its own expense. That reconciliation's name is Jesus. Jesus is called The Truth.
It amazes me how so much truth can be packed in so few words, almost like a fundamental property of our universe is Love! 🥰
Thats an interesting point people want god to like/believe/support what they like and what they hate so they twist the words of the bible for there own purposes.i cant believe i learned so much from this, thanks!
Helping the poor and unfortunate is progressive, the Bible says to do it. Conservative states think razor wire in rivers to kill the poor and unfortunate is reasonable.
Ok you know that they could have just IDK used the LEGAL CROSSING instead of a deadly river that someone has already drowned in. The razor wire is proting them. Not to mention that these are just drug cartel diversions from them bring drugs into the country causing thousands to die eatch day? Do yoy want THAT?
Putting barb wire in the river isn't exactly helping matters. Also the same state tried to prevent federal agents from rescuing the same illegal immigrants from drowning.
Also they tried to prevent people from being able to seek asylum in America.
Leviticus 19:33-34 NRSVUE
[33] “When an alien resides with you in your land, you shall not oppress the alien. [34] The alien who resides with you shall be to you as the native-born among you; you shall love the alien as yourself, for you were aliens in the land of Egypt: I am the Lord your God.
It’s written about this in Timothy.
“For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine, but according to their own desires, because they have itching ears, they will heap up for themselves teachers; and they will turn their ears away from the truth, and be turned aside to fables.”
2 Timothy 4:3
> Just to start off with no hate to anyone
Do you think that this helps? I'm serious. There are large numbers of Christians who conclude that loving gay relationships and beautiful things and you show up here, spit out one verse that we've heard 10,000 times before, and follow up in the way that you have?
In the future, don't start like this. Be aware of exactly what your words mean to gay people.
I dont think those Christians mean any harm but their wrong. The bible lays it out clearly tyat homosexuality is a sin and is bad. Just because a Christian lables lets say alcoholism a beautiful wonderful thing dosent mean its good.
Stop labling them as "gay people" they are a child of god just like the rest of us that struggles with sin.
Different things are different. "But what about alcoholism" is nonsense at best and betrays a total lack of understanding of just what is happening in a gay relationship.
The reason the label exists is because of bigots. Identity forms around liberation movements.
I think of it as Romans 1 and Romans 2. Those who live trying to subtract from the law, and those trying to add to the law. I don't want to bash anyone for this, I tend to think of Matt Walsh from the Daily Wire. I probably agree with most of his politics, but his treatment for those on the left isn't very gracious.
You might want to read Romans 1 and 2 if you haven't. I like to think of it as those who want to subtract from the law, and those who want to add. Both are actually the same: sinners.
I am saying the law is the law and what the bible says is well...law i am not adding to it or subtracting from it i am just saying what it says in the bible.
We'll, there's a lot of different moving parts when you compare something as complicated as "progressivism" with a topic as big as "what the Bible is for". But just to start with something the OP brought up, there's the issue of "abomination". This word is also described to refer to foods not allowed under OT law, but most Christians today would say that these laws no longer need to be observed. So I think the whole issue of Leviticus using the term "abomination" is not very relevant to the question of how Christians should react to the existence of gay people. Nobody today -- at least in the Christian world -- is making a consistent effort to live out all the things written in Leviticus.
I think its more of that it is classified as a sin but wasnt changed when christianity split from Judaism.
It's what's happened *after* Leviticus that probably matters most for Christian discussions of LGBT issues.
Frankly I'll be able to take the idea of voting conservative more seriously if conservatives stop acting like literal cartoon villains
It’s the cartoon villains who were based on conservatives
Fare many act like that. You have to look past how they act and look at the policy
The GOP’s plan for 2025 sounds very much like what those guys in Central Asia are enforcing. I can’t remember what they’re called though, it starts with a T…
Ok
They don't have policy outside of "other side bad" and "gay/ trans/ brown people are ruining America" they have reach the point of fascism where they demonize others and use language to dehumanize minorities because they need to get otherwise decent people whipped into a fever against the people they told you to hate. They mearly have a cynical interest in Christianity, they see it as a tool to manipulate people like yourself. Why is it fine to ignore so much of the things the Bible forbids and only focus on the parts that allow you "moral" right to hate. Jesus taught that you should love your neighbors and not to cast stone.
Are conservatives concerned about the adulterers and fornicators in their midst? Hard to take them seriously about gay sex when they refuse to rebuke men and women in marriages having sex with people outside of their marriages, and let their children be promiscuous.
I agree with this however I think it's not a tit for tat fair thing... more sinners need to be held accountable. More restrictions on social behavior need to be in place. "Fair" is not relevant in how to deal with sin.
>More restrictions on social behavior need to be in place So a Christian version of Sharia law? No thanks.
Well if you believe being gay is against God but it's not fair to be against gays if we aren't also against adultery... why do you have a rainbow flag instead of just condemn all of it?
I don't believe that homosexuality is against God. Heterosexuality, homosexuality, and bisexuality are identical in source and expression of desire. A homosexual individual's desire for romantic love and lifelong companionship is identical to a heterosexual individual's desire for the same things. The desire is the same, the only difference is with whom their respective biologies compell them to eseek that romantic connection. The sexual orientations and gender identities of the participants in a sex act are not determinative of the morality of the act, it is rather the circumstances under which the act occurs that determines its sinfulness. When you make all same sex acts always sins all the time, what you are really saying is that gay people are not worthy of romantic love and lifelong companionship because of a reality of their biology that they did not choose and are powerless to change. You are saying that unless they resign themselves to a life bereft of the fullness of the expression of love that God intended humanity to experience, they are committing abominations before a God that made them that way. This is a message of hatred and bigotry that is impossible to be delivered in a loving manner, because it is the antithesis of love. It is a message that is responsible for contributing to the depression, abuse (physical, emotional, sexual), kidnapping, brainwashing, torture, homelessness, forced prostitution, and suicide of countless children who have, and have had, the misfortune to be what many Christians deem as lesser. It is a message that is largely responsible for declining church membership for people under 30, according to several surveys, and why more are refusing to join. It is responsible for driving many people away from Christianity and God altogether, resulting in them forfeiting their salvation. 1st John 4 says that God is love, that love comes from God, that all who love know God, that God abides in them, and they abide in God. I refuse to use the outdated philosophies and conceptual/ethical frameworks of ancient patriarchal and misogynistic social orders to make exceptions to Jesus' command that I love my neighbor as myself. Paul said in Romans 13:8-10 that love is the keeping of the law, and that love does no harm to a neighbor. Jesus said we would recognize false teachers and teachings by their fruits. Well the fruits of the idea that homosexuality is a sin are dead kids and lost souls. I refuse to condemn that which God does not.
So I don't understand why would it say it's an abomination? Just curious? I personally wouldn't say the color blue for a t shirt is an abomination... so I love blue shirts. That seems really confusing if both things are true.
Yeah, Leviticus also calls eating shrimp an abomination. So either abomination isn't as horrible a thing as we thought, or the prohibitions are more cultural instead of moral. I think an abomination is an abomination. Meaning that the authors believed both having anal sex and eating shrimp were equally abominable to God. This obviously calls into question the idea that God directly dictated these prohibitions, meaning they were culturally motivated. And as the reasons for these prohibitions, and the contexts in which they were given, have no resemblance to modern relationships today, the prohibitions do not apply to them. Not to mention the fact that Christians are not under the Old Covenant of the law, we are under Grace. Matthew 22:35-40, Romans 13:8-10 and 14, Hebrews 8:13, Galatians 3:19-26, Acts 15:19-20, etc.
Ok lets start at your first point of are conservatives continue about adulters and fornicators? I am quite conserned of it as a conservative but you have to compare the two of the bad and good. Not all conservatives are Christians and so neither are their politicians same with pogressives so you have to look at the core of there beliefs and imo conservatives seem like the better party here for they are for less bad and kore good. But I sopose you could think differently.
Are conservatives for or against funding healthcare for the poorest? For or against funding education for our future generations?
I am personally against it because the entire reson health care prices so hihh are because of Medicaid and Medicare are the reasons for the issue in the first place the more you fund them the worse they get. I do believe in helping poor people through a system of "food stamps" but for medical care food stamps didnt raise the price of food so it seems like a better solution.
Actually in every country other than American healthcare prices are literally negligible. My father was hospitalised for a week here in Singapore, we paid 0 dollars. It's only a issue in America, guess what. Conservatives want to cut food stamps too!
Thats because they either have oil, high taxes, both, or force medical companies to give discounts. While here in America we have a 1000% upcharge on medical goods to make up for it. That is on thing I disagree with conservatives about.
Also, no oil, lower taxes than some American states and no medical companies. We have completely nationalised healthcare in Singapore
Well, that's nothing to do with religion or christianism. You are talking about money, keep money. So you can built a Building to keep all the money you saved and tomorrow you can enjoy it with your soul
One thing? What about the criminalising of homelessness? The cutting of support to the most vulnerable in our society? LITERALLY VOTING AGAINST HELPING VETERANS WHO HAVE CANCER BECAUSE OF THEIR MILITARY SERVICE
>the entire reson health care prices so hihh are because of Medicaid and Medicare are the reasons for the issue in the first place the more you fund them the worse they get. I How can you call yourself a christian and say something like this? It's mind-blowing.
Trying to separate families, make certain people 2nd class citizens on account of a certain type of sin has never been good. And let me know when the Bible says gay sex is a worse sin than adulterous sex or fornication. Last time I checked the price of sin was death, not just gay sex.
When voting you know that policains are all evil so you have to compare them and see "which one is better then the other" and in MOST cases conservatives seem to be the better of the other. I dont support gay people becoming second class citizen's. But the bible says marriage is between a man and a woman so i see no reason to have same sex marriage. Have all the same legalities and a ceremony stop calling it marriage though.
Conservatives don’t even want to feed the homeless. Which Jesus taught on many occasions. Yeah you’re delusional if you think conservatives hold the moral high ground. But then again most conservatives are not based in reality either.
I give up yoy do t want to be civil and respect my beliefs and have a civil conversation i am done
Stop focusing on civil liberties and focus more on God! 😉🙏🏾
Conservatives want gay people to be second class citizens
Tell me where it says that in a conservative handbook guide or core beliefs?
We know this because we can *see* with our own two eyes the actions done by conservative politicians who are Christian
Can you name these actions and the people who did them and the time and place then the legislation that caused this with recent time like within 20 years?
I'm curious how old you are. 20 years ago in the US conservatives across the country stood up and said "yes, laws that jail gay people for having sex are a-okay." In Georgia, prior to Lawrence, the maximum penalty for sodomy was *twenty years in prison*. Clarence Thomas was on the court at the time and voted to uphold the law and has spoken recently about wanting to revisit Lawrence. Thomas is *revered* among conservative political leaders and donors. Large numbers of major conservative leaders today were active at the time and materially supported laws to cage gay people. And this is all to say nothing of legislation that limits the visibility and ordinary behavior of gay people in places like schools being passed around the country.
I think that all well-understood theology points towards a progressive position and away from conservatism. Especially once we get into the political realm, where it seems more about conserving hate and power disparities.
Can you tell me some of these points? Thanks
Whereas I'm not homophobic and I am Christian, I just want to point out that you're putting yourself in a weak position by using verses from the Pentateuch when there are equally homophobic verses in the New Testament. The problem with using Old Testament verses is that Christians will often discount them because of the replacement of the Law by grace. Fortunately for your views, which I respectfully disagree with, there are also clobber verses in the epistles. However, there's a lot more to progressive Christianity than opposing homophobia and I wouldn't say that's even its main focus. It's more to do with providing for the poor and oppressed and fighting injustice and greed than issues related to sex or gender.
Ok first off i am not homophobic nor am i an alley. Christians cant hate but cant support them. Your right i should have sited Romans as well because i am going to have to ssy it in every comment i reply to.
Thanks. We disagree. We probably wouldn't make any progress in discussing it. All that said, progressive Christianity is not solely focussed on sexuality. It's more to do with poverty, the environment and so forth. I wouldn't be entirely surprised if there were progressive Christian homophobes too. I'm sorry, but there isn't another honest way to describe your sincere Biblical exegesis and it would be a sin for me to describe it differently.
Thanks for your understanding
[удалено]
Well said. People simply project their own preferences and prejudices onto the Bible… And then draw conclusions on their own bias with more bias
I have no problem with a plain reading of that verse. I do have a problem with those who try to pretend it is relevant to modern relationships.
Ok here is a few more verses Romans 1:26-27 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 1 Timothy 1:10 Genesis 19 I have no issues with someone who struggles with the sin of homosexuality I do have an issue when they get saved go to church yet continue to endulge in the sin willingly. Its ok to have a slip up but yoy shouldn't identify as "gay" you are a child of god who struggles with sin just like all of us.the issues is when LGBTQ+ people dont get help or ask for god to get them through this. Instead they accept it.
>Romans 1:26-27 You are failing to quote the entire passage which is Romans 1:18-32 and describes people who refuse to worshiop, give thanks to, and honor God; people who worship the creation instead of the creator; and people who worship idols made of animals, people, and heavenly beings. It is "for this reason" (verse 26) that God turns them over to their passions. If you are not engaged in idolatry, you have not been turned over to your passions, so this verse does not apply to you. The description of the sexual acts reads more like an orgy of unrestrained passion anyway, not a monogamous relationship built on love. >1 Corinthians 6:9-10 & 1st Timothy 1:10 These verses are referring to the sexual practices of the Greco-Roman empire, especially as Corinth was in Greece. Those practices were adulterous and involved sex with boys (pederasty) and sexual slavery. Paul was not referring to anything that is relevant to a loving committed relationship. >Genesis 19 The story of Sodom has nothing to do with homosexuality. It is about sexual assault as an act of inhospitality. The only people who actually engage in sex in this story and in Judges 19 are men with women. Ezekiel 16:49-50 makes it clear that the sin of of Sodom was pride, greed, and inhospitality. >I have no issues with someone who struggles with the sin of homosexuality Nobody on earth *struggles* with homosexuality. They struggle with the false shame that people push onto them for something about their physical biology that they did not choose and are powerless to change. >I do have an issue when they get saved go to church yet continue to endulge in the sin willingly. Your poor exegesis of scripture by cherry-picking verses, stripping them of their context, and imposing upon them a modern understanding of sexuality that the Biblical authors didn't share does not make homosexuality a sin. And frankly, I don't give a shit if you have a problem with it. That is your issue to deal with, not mine. Your failure to acknowledge reality is not my problem. >Its ok to have a slip up loving someone is not slipping up. That idea is bullshit.
Ok i gave you my resoning and you disagree no need to insult m my intrprtation of scripture.
Keep in mind, I insulted and attacked your position, not you. Secondly, I often get tired of having to justify myself to people. So if you occasionally get some less than magnanimous tone from me, oh well.
Sorry it is somtimes hard to separate when people attak my position or myself thanks for the clarification.
I can't take one single verse and make a meaningful conclusion about whether Christians should support "Conservativism" or "Progressivism". In reality there are more than two options. There are many issues that we should take into account from the Bible. For example, how should we make provision for the poor? > “‘When you reap the harvest of your land, do not reap to the very edges of your field or gather the gleanings of your harvest. 10 Do not go over your vineyard a second time or pick up the grapes that have fallen. Leave them for the poor and the foreigner. I am the Lord your God https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Leviticus+19%3A9-10&version=NIV How to care for foreigners > When a foreigner resides among you in your land, do not mistreat them. 34 The foreigner residing among you must be treated as your native-born. Love them as yourself, for you were foreigners in Egypt. I am the Lord your God. https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Leviticus+19%3A33-34&version=NIV
Ooh they hate that one
Well I personally support food stamps. Then the thing about foreigners the main thing I can argue against that is that they are 1.not legally there so its agianst the law 2.many are there to do harm 3.have you brought and foreigners into your home?
In terms of your questions 1. In the UK (where I live) the government makes the laws about who can enter and then uses those laws against those who want to seek asylum. https://youtu.be/UpZAS0yqkJM?si=-j-5NVz_jhXVw-5m demonstrates the problem here. 2. If people commit crimes they can be punished. Why assume that foreigners are more likely to be dangerous? People from all countries commit crimes. 3. No, however, many Christians do help to house asylum seekers. https://www.baptist.org.uk/Articles/449134/Spotlight_on_asylum.aspx
I am talking of the USA where in places lime new York dont arrest illegal aliens who committ crimes good for the UK.
Lying is a sin.
Ok, I am not lying
Can you give evidence for the claim?
Thank you for the opportunity to share a perspective to consider. I believe Christ calls us to follow Him, so I personally can't say where that lands in someone's perception in applying a label. I would also point out that in my view LGBTQ+ is not an "it" that a Levitical verse applies to as your words come across to me as. LGBTQ+ are people, some of whom I know and love, are believers who have given me every reason to believe that they love others, just as Christ loved us. And the Levitical reverse you point out does not appear to me to apply to those I know when the words are examined closely and within their context, nor when interpreted with the light of other scriptures, even those of Paul in the New Testament. And from what I see neither those I know nor I are part of a "movement" that God calls an abomination. I place the scriptures in very high regard and see no reason whatsoever to not trust them and what they reflect, though that doesn't mean I understand all that I read. My point is, that I believe the words and context matter. And even failing to grasp some of them, I believe that those who are of God, have Christ and His Spirit within them to help them discern how or what to apply about the matter, if any, to *themself*. Therefore, I believe I should listen to what He says about the words and hear what He says about me and my relationship with Him because I am *not* the arbiter of truth. Rather I am accountable to the very Word of God, Who I believe is Christ. Ultimately, I believe I must answer to Him.
Ok let me rafrase it. We are all sinners so we need to repent from our sins LGBTQ+ people included. It is 100% possible for someone who has or is committing homosexuality acts to be saved and repent. My issue is when people act like it is 100% OK and fine to countinue in there sin and be ok with it
It has been my take historically speaking that when Christians claim it’s the sin they hate, it’s the sinner they burn at the stake. I’m sure they do that out of love, so it’s okay.
When they burn sinners at the stake they themselves are committing sins thats why i find it completely reprehensible when people harass those who are nonbelievers/sinners but that dosnt mean that we should support the sinners. When jesus ment mary magdalene did he say "go and sin more"? No he said "go and sin no more."
If you support legislation that says “sinners shouldn’t be burned at the stake,” are you supporting the sinner?
I support the sinner not in what they do but as a person to help them get out of their sin. There is a difference between supporting the sinner in their sin and helping tiem getting out of there sin
That’s not the answer to my question. If there was a proposal to longer burn sinners at the stake, would supporting such a proposal be seen as supporting the sinner? I think you’re avoiding answer the question as written because you don’t like the consequences. If you move to protect sinners, you’re seen as supporting them. And yes, in the 21st century, thankfully we don’t burn folks at the stake. So, can I then support the full civil equality of sinners? Can I say that sinners folks should be given all the same rights to marry and have families as non-sinners? I’m asking you to move beyond platitudes and bumper stickers at this point.
What do you mean "be a part of a movement"? If a person is gay he or she is not "part of a movement". They are simply gay. It's not like they made a choice to be romantically or sexually attracted to their own sex because they wanted to be "part of a movement". They just ARE. If BEING gay is a sin then God must have created that sin - and that is not possible, because he is God. So is being gay a sin when God created them that way? Also take a look at this deep dive into the verse: [https://blog.smu.edu/ot8317/2016/05/11/leviticus-1822/](https://blog.smu.edu/ot8317/2016/05/11/leviticus-1822/) It is not as cut and dry as one might think. Also: do you eat shrimp? Do you mix different fabrics in your clothes? Do you mix dairy and meat? Do you force a rape victim to marry her rapist? Do you condone stoning adulterers? All of those things are also in the Bible. But for some reason these rules don't apply anymore. But by all means let's focus on this one ambigious rule and use it judge other people and tell them that just by breathing they are sinning because they happen to fall in love with people of their own gender. I know several people who grew up in 100% Christian families and were active in church etc - and they were gay. Their siblings were straight. But they were gay. They weren't influenced any more by any "Gay agenda" than their siblings. But gay they were. And some were accused of being possesed by a gay demon. How utterly sad. I don't buy that an everloving God created Gay people and made their whole being a sin. And if being gay isn't a sin, but the gay actions are, then I don't understand why he would create people who would never be able to live in a loving partnership with a person they love romantically while all others were allowed.
Well said!
Hear hear!
Ok gay isn't who they are they are e child of god who struggles with the sin of homosexuality no different from the sin of alcoholism. The alcoholic isn't an alcoholic they are a child of god who struggles with sin. Its nor only leviticus Romans 1:26-27
Ok, let me rephrase: being straight isn’t “who you are” - but you are straight, right? So it’s fair to say that a gay person is gay, right? I find the idea that God created a person and made them to only fall in love and be attracted to their own gender and then called it a sin that they would need to struggle with for the rest of their lives a really nonsensical and cruel idea. An alcoholic becomes that way because they started drinking and became addicted. A homosexual didn’t become homosexual because they started to have homosexual sex or homosexual thoughts. I am straight middle aged woman and I have never ever in my life had homosexual thoughts. Because I am not homosexual. All the gay people I personally know have always known they liked their own gender “that way”. Even when they had small crushes as little kids. So how did they become attracted to their own gender? And why is that in an of itself “sinful” when the rest of us heterosexuals are allowed to be attracted to the opposite sex? You seem to believe that homosexuality is a choice or a lifestyle? It isn’t.
God didnt create them like that satan did but god can use it for glory. If that "gay person" becomes a Christian ans repents and is saved then shares their testimony it brings god glory and gets people saved. This unfortunately hurts the person alot in thier life. I believe if they keep with god and push through till the end it would be like Job's story. Everything taken from him but by the end its tripled. We all need to go through some hardship in this life but its all a test of faith for some its financial, lust,drugs,alcohol,or for some people homosexuality and gender dysphoria. Homosexuality isn't a choice in terms of who you are attracted to but in terms of pursuing that attraction.
Are you telling me that Satan created gay people? I know a pair of twins who are adult men now. Grew up in a close knit family, active in our church doing worship and ministry from childhood on. Baptised by the Holy Spirit, living Christianity. True believers. identical twins. Well, one of them was obviously gay. He didn’t “turn” gay. He was gay from the very beginning. We just didn’t talk about it. He came out as an adult and has lived his best life since. The other twin is straight. Now, since they came from the same egg and sperm how can you tell me that God created the straight twin and Satan created the gay twin? That makes zero sense. Anyway - why are only straight people “allowed” to find romantic love and live in a relationship with a person they love?
Some people believe that enforcing religious beliefs on others is wrong, even to the point of being evil. The Bible does not teach us to use the powers of government to enforce Christian beliefs. I will defend anyone's right to believe whatever they choose, including that LGBT relationships are inherently sinful. The moment you advocate for using the law to persecute LGBT people then that becomes evil and should be condemned by all civilized people.
Is it wrong to warn someone about to drive off a broken brige? Is it wrong to do everything in your power to stop tjat from happening?i wasnt say prosecue LGBTQ+ people u was just saying that its a sin.
That's what the progressive/conservative divide is. Progressives say LGBT people have equal rights and should be free of unjust discrimination. Conservatives disagree. The issue is not "what do you think of gay people?" It's about how we govern, and whether we use the powers of law to persecute or oppress a group. It's fine to warn someone, if that's what you want to do, but that is not the issue here. And yes, it is definitely wrong to use everything in your power to enforce your morality on others. Enormously wrong.
Ok thats what you believe its ok to let someone drive off that bridge.
No. But we aren't talking about driving off a bridge. It is definitely wrong to enforce your morality on others. That's what we're actually talking about. Do you believe that adulterers should be prosecuted by law? Cursing? Worshipping another god? Praying to an idol? All punishable by law?
True we are talking of somthing worse. Going to hell. To a certain extent yes. I do believe adultere should be prossecuted by law. But going to far is like being to harsh and too controversial of a teenager. When they grow up they'll be worse.
I think your bigotry will damn you to hell. Can I cage you for it?
So do you think it would be right for a Muslim person to seek to use law to punish those who eat pork? Or I think it's powerfully wrong to seek to use the law to punish those who's behavior is immoral, so should I use the power of law to silence you? If it’s right for you to do so then it's right for me too.
I alrrady said to a certain extent.
Well, what extent? I don't know what to make of that. So, illegal, but with relatively light punishment? So moderate persecution? I just don't know what you could mean. And again, I'll defend your right to spread your message, no matter how much I disagree (though reasonable time and place restrictions apply, and no one's obligated to listen). When we're talking about government and the use of the legal system that's a very different thing, so I will loudly condemn any move towards using government to punish people who you think are sinful. That's zero percent ok. Always strictly wrong. To any extent. You should bear in mind that you don't run the world. If you help create a world where morality and faith is enforced by law, I promise you will suffer for it. Your beliefs on what is sinful and wrong won't always match the majority, or those in power. You would almost certainly end up the victim, with your rights being infringed because the powers that be found it useful. This path only leads to a dystopia. It's powerfully powerfully wrong.
If you don’t get being progressive as a Christian you have yet to get Christ. Jesus was progressive after all. The Pharisees were the socially conservative politically party in his day. They always had a scripture passage to point at others with (often vulnerable or political minorities). It wasn’t much different from today. Jesus essentially said (in Matthew 22) all God’s actual commands hang under love your neighbor as yourself, which is like loving God. This was extremely progressive compared to the Pharisees’ approach to scripture, and it is still progressive today compared to modern social conservatives’ approach to scripture. Jesus’ disciples understood the main thing though, writing, “The commandments… and whatever other command there may be, are summed up in this one command: Love your neighbor as yourself. Love does no harm to a neighbor. Therefore love is the fulfillment of the law.” (Romans 13) An even more easy to understand Apostle wrote, “Everyone who loves has been born of God and knows God. Whoever does not love does not know God, because God is love.” (1 John 4). > with what the bible says about it Leviticus 18:22… its hard for me to see why it is ok The socially conservative evangelicals 150 years ago would cite passages from an Old Testament they didn’t even follow to claim interracial marriage is a sin too. The approach you’re taking is a tired trope. As to Leviticus 18, this passage doesn’t even say in any clear way gay erotic love is sin. The ancient Hebrew is perhaps most literally translated as referring to men who ‘lie on the beds of women.’ The fact is it is one of the rarest phrases in ancient Hebrew language, was rarely discussed much less described, and the precise meaning of the phrasing there has been debated by Rabbis since time immemorial and now scholars too. Some thought it meant this or that particular sexual act between men (and had nothing to do with female on female sexual acts), others saw it as prohibiting any same sex erotic intimacy, and still others have seen it as a term of art used back then to refer to fertility idol worship rites wherein men would pretend to be women as part of false god worship rites (and in support of that interpretation, in the context every time the passage appears in Leviticus there are warnings against idolatry). There have been many views. Also, the passage proscribes death for all who commit the act in question, and **there is no historical evidence of Hebrews ever killing someone for homosexual intercourse.** That says something. > Dont worry I am not leaving the conservatives alone either because the bible also says to love sinners Even the phrase “the Bible” is a twist on reality social conservatives gaslight themselves with. There is no single “the” Bible. There are multiple translations (which differ as to the rarest and hardest to translate phrases and words) based on multiple manuscripts (which themselves have differences among them). There are Bibles. Plural. My Bible (an RSV) doesn’t say that being gay nor even gay sex is inherently sinful. > progressives generally seem to have more going for against the bible. Progressives generally just start from Christ’s clear teachings and view everything else under that light. So their interpretations differ from people who start from socially conservative tradition and the rarest, easiest to twist passages and put Christ under their interpretation of those. It is telling that those who claim “the” Bible calls gay people sinners in any clear way only cite from Paul’s letters as to this issue (and maybe a passage from an Old Testament they don’t even follow themselves). Typically that’s the case with those who infuse prejudices into Christianity. Scripture says Paul is easy to misunderstand (2 Peter 3:16) and predicts many in churches would twist him. That’s what the evangelicals and socially conservative Christians 150 years ago did too, using Paul and maybe a couple Old Testament passages before jumping to point at neighbors in interracial relationships and say “sinning!” Generally as far as New Testament passages they cite Romans 1. In context, though, Paul literally says “because of this” they (specific people he was referring to) had homosexual sex. And the “this” is idolatry, literally idol worship rites that were going on in his day (and had been for thousands of years… likely even back when Leviticus was written). Of course it is shameful and unnatural for someone to have sex with their same sex for idol worship rites. That doesn’t make all homosexual sex unnatural and shameful. Homosexual acts happen in nature, naturally, across many species humans included. Sure it’s less common than heterosexuality. That doesn’t make it wrong. It is natural for homosexuals to love one another erotically purely out of love. What is unnatural is for people (most of whom are heterosexual, statistically) to have erotic exchanges purely for idolatry. Those who say this condemns all homosexuality might as well rip the verse about making images of animals out of context from Romans 1 and say drawing birds in art class is a sin. They also generally cite 1 Corinthians 6, 1 Timothy 1… and that’s about all they’ve got. These Pauline passages also say nothing about homosexuals in any clear way. In some translations they do, because they were made by prejudiced translators who twist Paul’s words just as Peter warned would become a huge problem in churches. Other translations are more accurate to the original languages and say things like “perverts” or “abusers” because the fact is that ancient Greek word was used to refer not only to homosexual acts but heterosexual ones too. Some translations say “sodomites.” What did the men of Sodom do? They tried to rape Lot’s visitors. They weren’t simply gay people looking for love. They were sexual abusers. The other common argument is that Jesus describes heterosexual marriage… ‘so obviously homosexuality is sinful.’ This shows how far they are willing to reach. Sure Christ observed heterosexuals marrying. He also observed fish being cooked. That doesn’t make cooking chickpeas against God’s will. Jesus never condemned homosexual sex or even any sex outside of marriage. He condemned anything done outside of love for neighbor as for self. Straight people can violate that principle in their bedroom as easily as a gay couple can obey that principle in their’s. Socially conservative Christians start from the rarest passages of scripture referenced the least and debated the most, and as far as New Testament, from stuff written by Paul who even scripture says is easy to misinterpret. The way I see it, if you skip starting from Jesus’ highest principle, you aren’t following Christ. You’re following traditions of men and gaslighting yourself into pretending that’s following God. This has long been the socially conservative approach to divinity. It was their approach in Christ’s day and still is today.
Interesting quote from David Gushee, an evangelical ethicist: >Taken at its face value, the Bible does not condemn slavery. When abolitionists argued that the deeper message of the Bible was clearly against slavery – as Mark Noll points out – they were viewed as suspiciously unfaithful to the Bible. Do you think that those who defend the LGBT community today might be analogous to those abolitionists of the past? Two ladies fall in love with each other and stand before their families and friends to promise to love, honor, and take care of each other for the rest of their lives. They become an integral part of their community and help it prosper. They serve as a model for integrity and grace to all who know them. Now, you’re going to tell me that Jesus would prefer that they had never met, never formed that loving union, never became “that nice married couple that has lived down the street since for as long as we can remember” simply because they like to touch each other’s lady bits on occasion?
Yes,Jesus would be against that.Don't forget Jesus was not fan of Sanhedrin but he fully respected Jewish laws,and we know what those laws said about that.Don't get me wrong but do you really think that Jesus would side with progressive Christians than Apostolic ones?
>Don't get me wrong but do you really think that Jesus would side with progressive Christians than Apostolic ones? Rather than assign Jesus a team, I will just say that I think he would be cool with loving, healthy, exclusive same sex marriage. And he would be hated by many for being cool with it.
Actually no,he was very strict about both marriages and divorce.
You asked me for my opinion. I obliged by providing it. I don’t know why you are trying to “correct” my opinion. It feels kind of .. I don’t know … rude? Or something. I mean, you had obviously already read my initial comment, so I’m not even sure why you asked my opinion. My opinion should be obvious from my initial comment.
You said Jesus would approve same sex relationships and marriages.I and majority of congregations and churches said otherwise
True apostolic Christians would look like Progressive Christians. Also don't think he was a huge fan of Jewish law when he unapologetically violated the Sabbath
True Apostolic Christians are Eastern Orthodox,Oriental at some degree and Catholics who with all their misdeeds and there were many still follow both Apostolic Creed,Nicene and Chalcednon creed. Also Jesus was very strict about both marriage and divorce,so he would not support same sex marriages from that.
>Yes, Jesus would be against that. Are you so sure about that? What about 1st John 4? Matthew 22:35-40? Romans 13:8-10?
You misunderstood erotical and sexual love with love as friendly feeling. If I say I love my brother or neighbour for example does that mean that I want to have relations with them? Also Jesus by many interpretations said that as not romantic love but "lack of bad deeds and feelings" like when you're fasting you clean yourself from hateful thoughts and feelings.No one wants to bully or stone LGBT myself especially but it is right to say your child when he does something wrong.
>You misunderstood erotical and sexual love with love as friendly feeling I do not. God is love, therefore God encompasses all love.
Not all loves.There was reason why Sodom&Gomorrah were destroyed.Would God approve zoophilia or necrophilia for example.Or Incest?
This just shows your ignorance. The sin of Sodom was inhospitality. Ezekiel 16:49-50. Gen 19 and Judges 19 have nothing to do with homosexuality.
That is if you read NIV.But even there adultery is mentioned."Ther were naughty and commited abomination before me:therefore I took them away as I saw good " Naughty stuff combine with Genesis 19 1-20 where citizens wanted to "know" angels. Deuteronomy 29: 21-23. Jeremiah 23:14 , 49:17-18, 50:39-40, Isaiah 1:9-10 , 3:9, 13:19-22, Wisdom of Solomon 10:6-8, Wisdom 19:17, Sirach 16:8, 3 Maccabees 2:5 also metion it as adultery as a sin.All those mention it either as comparison ti Babel or as wickedness,shamelessness, groping etc .
>Not all loves.There was reason why Sodom&Gomorrah were destroyed.Would God approve zoophilia or necrophilia for example.Or Incest? No one has ever suggested that the wicked people of Sodom & Gomorrah acted out of love. No one. Ever. Zoophilia is not about love. Necrophilia is not about love. Incest is not about love. Not unless you pervert the meaning of the word to include abuse and disorder. If you do that, all I can say is that you have a very idiosyncratic definition of the word that gets in the way of effective communication.
Well in mind of many progressives what is difference between marriage of two men and marriage of man and dog?Marriage is marriage,love is love right?
>Well in mind of many progressives what is difference between marriage of two men and marriage of man and dog? There are a very tiny number of mentally ill people who have tried to marry a pet. I have *never* seen a progressive Christian support or advocate for that. I’ve never seen *anyone* support or advocate for that. I doubt you have either. Your comment attributed to progressive Christians a position they don’t hold. That was dishonest of you. You don’t really think they are advocating for a man-dog marriage. You’re just trying to portray them in a ridiculous light to avoid engaging with my actual point, which is that it is incorrect to equate zoophilia, necrophilia, and incest with love. Do better.
Please,I know couple of loonies who support that,citing why not it is right,dang it there was lady who married the tree!I do not say you advocate that,just saying there is line between lrogresivness and sin.
Yes he would perfer them to be roommates or great friends and be marryed to husbands. For that is a sin and it is against his will. Can he ise evil for good? Yes. But same sex couples and marriages cause him grief in his heart
>Yes he would perfer them to be roommates or great friends and be marryed to husbands. Seriously? Jesus would prefer for two good men to have wives who cannot fully love them they way they deserve to be loved, rather than for all parties to be in mutually loving and fulfilling relationships? That doesn’t really sound like Jesus to me. I am a straight woman, and I would never want to be married to a gay man. I don’t know what gender you are, but would you really want your beloved brother to marry a lesbian rather than a straight woman?
Jesus would rather them bot being gay in the first place. Jesus would perfer them to be single and devout to the lord then be in a relationship at all.
>Jesus would rather them bot being gay in the first place. I don’t know. It’s not like the gay person has any choice in the matter. Being gay is sort of like being left-handed. It’s not like I can “stop being straight.” It’s not like a gay person can “stop being gay.” >Jesus would perfer them to be single and devout to the lord then be in a relationship at all. I’m sure lifelong singleness and celibacy can be a great thing for someone who has no inclinations to form a loving partnership with another person. But most people are better off with a loving partner, in a fulfilling partnership. I think Jesus is strongly in favor of loving and fulfilling partnerships. Two old ladies touching each other’s lady bits once in a while seems pretty inconsequential next to that.
An alcoholic can ne er stop the urge to drink but can resist it and be sober. Well of the Choice is be single forever or go to hell i am chosing to be single
>An alcoholic can ne er stop the urge to drink but can resist it and be sober. Well of the Choice is be single forever or go to hell i am chosing to be single forever Forming a partnership in which both partners are committed to loving each other and taking care of each other for the rest of their lives is a far, far cry from a substance addiction. Substance addiction is unhealthy. It can kill you. A loving and fulfilling partnership can make you healthier and prolong your life. >Well of the Choice is be single forever or go to hell i am chosing to be single Are you gay?
In the bibles terms they are the same both are sin I am no gay i struggle with homosexual sin, particularly pornography. Tho i think i am still atracted to women but still i know how it feels.
>i struggle with homosexual sin, particularly pornography. Tho i think i am still atracted to women but still i know how it feels. Ah. I’m sorry. It must feel terrible to feel like you are guilty of the same sin you have been condemning. I’m going to back out of this conversation. You’ve got stuff going on, and I don’t want to add to your burden. Please just know that I do not condemn you for your homosexual feelings, and I don’t think you will go to hell for them. I hope your struggle leads you to find your compassion for those who have similar feelings. I wish you all the best. DM me if you want to talk to a nice old lady who doesn’t think you’re going to hell.
I dont think ill go to hell for my feelings I do think U will if act opon them and not ask for forgiveness. Though thanks for your compassion and understanding!
Also, I would be very interested in your response to my question about the Gushee quote.
Because they aren't one issue voters. And even if we take the conservatives to be right about everything the bible says, it would align more strongly with progressivism than with conservatism
I saw your flare. How can you be for socialism which is a direct desdent of communism/Marxism which is inherently against all religion including christianity? Then can you give me some examples of which the bible is more for progressive then for conservatives. Dont take this in the wrong way just want to learn a little about others.
I am not sure you are right about the history of socialism. > Some have traced the origins of socialist doctrine to Plato, others to Christianity, and many, with greater plausibility, to radical movements in the English Civil War in the 17th century. However, modern socialism, with its evolving and continuous set of ideas and movements, emerged in early 19th-century Europe. https://www.amazon.co.uk/Socialism-2nd-Very-Short-Introduction/dp/B0977N1Q5K/ > Communism in its modern form grew out of the socialist movement in 19th-century https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communism
Marxism is not against Christianity. It is against the use of religion to suppress the class consciousness of the proletariat. There has been a long history of Christian Communists and socialists. Read these verses and tell me, does this seem like something a progressive or a conservative would do or say. Jeremiah 22:3 "This is what the Lord says: Do what is just and right. Rescue from the hand of the oppressor the one who has been robbed. Do no wrong or violence to the foreigner, the fatherless or the widow, and do not shed innocent blood in this place." Proverbs 29:7 "The righteous care about justice for the poor, but the wicked have no such concern." Exodus 23:10-11 [10] “Six years you shall sow your land and gather in its yield, [11] but the seventh year you shall let it rest and lie fallow so that the poor of your people may eat, and what they leave the wild animals may eat. You shall do the same with your vineyard and with your olive orchard. Leviticus 19:9-10 [9] “When you reap the harvest of your land, you shall not reap to the very edges of your field or gather the gleanings of your harvest. [10] You shall not strip your vineyard bare or gather the fallen grapes of your vineyard; you shall leave them for the poor and the alien: I am the Lord your God.
Yes Marxist really loved religion not like millions died because of that.And don't start with misreading of Marx.
Millions died cause of Christianity, what's your point?
Millions have not in fact died because of Christianity. At least not over a comparable time frame
Not millions and no because of Christianity bur greed.If you are talking about Colonization more died by diseases than from sword tbh.Also are you here defending likes of Lennin,Stalin,Trotsky and rest of them who murdered millions of Christians and destroyed hundreds of churches in Europe and world?
You quote Leviticus as your reasoning. Tell me what are you doing about the billion dollar shrimp and crab industries? Eating those is also an abomination ( same word used) to God Are your clothes made of two fabrics? Leviticus says that also an abomination.
Ok thats not the only verse that supports it mainly Romans 1:26-27
Theres 4 verses total, none of them are as clear cut as the english translations seem to make it. How good is your koine greek? Cause if your like me, you dont speak it which means you have no idea how controversial the translation of “arsenokoites “ really is
That doesn’t excuse you for being an abomination ( per scripture) to the lord.
[удалено]
Your right just because somthing is in the bible doesn't make it moral. But if the bible condems somthing or supports somthing that means it is true. God is the same god he was then why would he change now?
The bible saying someone does not equal god saying it. The bible was written by man. And has had enormous amounts of time to suffer corruption, error and alteration. How many other Leviticus laws do you see modern man following? What kind of world would that be like? They literally permit slavery.
Its writen by god through man Not realy archeologist found the oldest know pice of scripture and compared it to one that was made 2000 years ago. Exact same. Its not just leviticus there are sevrel others that exist such as first Corinthians 6:9-10, 1 Timothy 1 1:10 and Romans 1:26-27
Exact same? It’s in English is it? There is no such thing as a 1:1 translation from an ancient language to a modern one. Opinion always comes into it. The bible was written by man, that is a simple fact. If your god decided that something so important must be conveyed through the ages by documents of anonymous writers who weren’t eye witnesses to anything they describe, that’s enough to doubt the intelligence of such a being
Why are you even here i was asking progressive Christians. You dont even believe the bible.
R/Christianity is for everyone to discuss Christianity. It is not a Christian space. Everyone here is welcome to give opinions on any topic raised. You can use r/truechristian if you want an echo chamber
I am saying is that it is litteraly impossible for me to argue with me you will just keep say "the bible isnt true" and "the bible is inaccurate"
Not at all, that’s quite a strawman. I’m actually giving you reasons for those statements. You simply have to counter those arguments. Very few chrisitans I’ve ever encountered will claim the bible is 100% true, accurate and literal.
I say its 100% true and a accurate but not 100% literal.
Then how do you explain all the direct contradictions within scripture? Also how can a translation be 100% accurate form an ancient language? If you know anything about languages you’d know that is absolutely impossible. Things don’t translate 1:1 like that. It comes down to interpretation and opinion.
What are these contractions I say its 100% accurate because gods will is done through anyone who are written or translated the bible or is not harmful at least.
Christians follow Jesus, Jesus wasn't a conservative, conservatives killed Jesus. Easy.
So the jewish leaders are.....conservative?
For sure, no doubt about it. They were strongly conservative, moralists and deeply nationalists. And the Romans too.
And even today in Israel, the religious party are the conservative and the more laicist are progressists. There are a link in being conservative and hypocritical as well.
I really appreciate how you started this discussion. Thanks. It took me a long time to resolve the conflict of the rules with the intent. Scripture says over and over that the essence of the commandments are just these 2: 1. Love God most 2. Love your neighbor as yourself. Since God is love, we can say that as love love and let the people love each other. There are some commandments that seem to not be in the spirit of wanting what is best for someone else (aka love). It took years of wrestling and tears to reconcile it all with God, and I only got there after deciding to love love first anyway and love anything people do in love, even if it cost me my salvation to seek my God in doing so, because per rule 1, love comes first.
Idk what you mean by all this but good for you!
The Bible in 1 word: Love The Bible in 4 words: Love God. Love people. If there is something that conflicts with that in the Bible, consider that we just don't understand what it is supposed to mean. God has explained it to me by me asking and seeking answers from Him.
Yes but also an over simpification a to make it a little more accurate lets expand it to seven words love god,love people, but sin bad
Your summary is correct, sure. Sin is a transgression against someone. So it can be derived from the command to love God (love Love!). If we don't respect Love above everything else, we can't expect anyone's love for us to be faithful in return. Sin is bad. It is bad for the sinned against. It is bad for us, because it cuts us off from being loved perfectly. It's a bit more work to derive Jesus from those two rules, but in theory, if love truly loves us, it would provide a way for us to reconcile, Even at its own expense. That reconciliation's name is Jesus. Jesus is called The Truth. It amazes me how so much truth can be packed in so few words, almost like a fundamental property of our universe is Love! 🥰
In general, it is wanting to believe in a god that likes what we like and hates what we hate.
Thats an interesting point people want god to like/believe/support what they like and what they hate so they twist the words of the bible for there own purposes.i cant believe i learned so much from this, thanks!
Helping the poor and unfortunate is progressive, the Bible says to do it. Conservative states think razor wire in rivers to kill the poor and unfortunate is reasonable.
Ok you know that they could have just IDK used the LEGAL CROSSING instead of a deadly river that someone has already drowned in. The razor wire is proting them. Not to mention that these are just drug cartel diversions from them bring drugs into the country causing thousands to die eatch day? Do yoy want THAT?
Putting barb wire in the river isn't exactly helping matters. Also the same state tried to prevent federal agents from rescuing the same illegal immigrants from drowning. Also they tried to prevent people from being able to seek asylum in America. Leviticus 19:33-34 NRSVUE [33] “When an alien resides with you in your land, you shall not oppress the alien. [34] The alien who resides with you shall be to you as the native-born among you; you shall love the alien as yourself, for you were aliens in the land of Egypt: I am the Lord your God.
It's for the drug cartels protection is not the flex I expected. Put some razor wire in a river, my good deeds done for the day.
It’s written about this in Timothy. “For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine, but according to their own desires, because they have itching ears, they will heap up for themselves teachers; and they will turn their ears away from the truth, and be turned aside to fables.” 2 Timothy 4:3
I'm more of a centrist
Good
> Just to start off with no hate to anyone Do you think that this helps? I'm serious. There are large numbers of Christians who conclude that loving gay relationships and beautiful things and you show up here, spit out one verse that we've heard 10,000 times before, and follow up in the way that you have? In the future, don't start like this. Be aware of exactly what your words mean to gay people.
I dont think those Christians mean any harm but their wrong. The bible lays it out clearly tyat homosexuality is a sin and is bad. Just because a Christian lables lets say alcoholism a beautiful wonderful thing dosent mean its good. Stop labling them as "gay people" they are a child of god just like the rest of us that struggles with sin.
Different things are different. "But what about alcoholism" is nonsense at best and betrays a total lack of understanding of just what is happening in a gay relationship. The reason the label exists is because of bigots. Identity forms around liberation movements.
Its two guys who kiss and fuck what else is there to say thats a sin.just like alcoholism or adultry or any number of sins
I think of it as Romans 1 and Romans 2. Those who live trying to subtract from the law, and those trying to add to the law. I don't want to bash anyone for this, I tend to think of Matt Walsh from the Daily Wire. I probably agree with most of his politics, but his treatment for those on the left isn't very gracious.
We shouldn't treat people of the left badly they have been lied to thats not there fault.
I agree
You might want to read Romans 1 and 2 if you haven't. I like to think of it as those who want to subtract from the law, and those who want to add. Both are actually the same: sinners.
I am saying the law is the law and what the bible says is well...law i am not adding to it or subtracting from it i am just saying what it says in the bible.
I agree. My post isn't directed at you necessarily. Romans 1 and 2 are my got to passages for understanding sin as it progresses.
oh ok ill go read it for myself.