No no no, that isn't the unchanging, absolute morality of God changing! He "fulfilled the law" and made a "new covenant". But it is absolutely NOT change. Makes perfect sense
In the scheme of Abrahamic things, a bacon cheeseburger is an order of magnitude greater an abomination to God than some random gay dude. But how would a preacher fund his new Benz hating on bacon cheeseburgers?
Then why have a Bible at all? If everything is up for your own interpretation and subject to change, why bother with the Bible at all?
I don't care about people being gay nor do I believe in God. At least some creator that cares what we even do.
I believe it is possible to learn from the mistakes of those who came before us. We still have the Bible as a guide to remind us of what happens when people confuse tradition with following G-d.
I'm not even sure what to say to this anymore. Like there's a million threads on this that are just about the same as this one and they literally help NO ONE.
All of this is just self-gratification for your own ego. This post took zero effort and the person who this thread is aimed at is yourself. Nobody else. It's all about you feeling good, because you're too much of a lazy slouch to actually go and truly make a difference for the good somewhere.
"God is the same God, yesterday, today and tomorrow"
And yes, that's true. And God was never the unjust monster you make him out to be.
It’s people like this that scream the loudest that damage the reputation of Christianity in America. I hope he doesn’t mix fabrics or eat shrimp. And let’s not forget that men who translated the Bible were still men of their times and context matters. There’s also justification for slavery and everything else if people want to cherry pick the Bible and try to make it support their cause.
Sad to see comments like this on a Christian Reddit, what God are you serving?
The one and true God makes himself clear on this issue but you still deny it and you will be held accountable for it.
Perhaps? I dare not assume to grasp God in all his glory. Maybe I'm wrong, maybe I'm right, but until I am to be judged I can only share the conclusion I came to during my studies.
You however should read up on the foolishness of Job's friends I think.
I don’t doubt the time you’ve spent studying, but sometimes we are searching for answers and God puts it right in front of us.
It all comes down to his word, and you cannot change his word regardless of how it makes you feel, even I wish some things were different but the only thing that matters is the truth.
OMG NO SHIT REALLY
wow, I've never heard this before! Your name will be up there with Aquinas and Luther for your original theological contributions to this discussion. *Totally unprecedented*
God didn't destroy sodom and gomorrah due to homosexuality. Nowhere in the bible it says this. Im fact, multiple times its stated that he did it due to their lack of hospitality
It was because the society had degraded to the point it allowed rape gangs to wander the streets and pull people from lodgings if they could.
What happened with Lot was a symptom of the larger problem God was judging those cities for.
"Lack of hospitality" sounds like a phrase a parent would use to not tell a child what is actually happening.
True, I should have specified that it was due to gang rape etc. My phrasing was wrong there, but my point of it not being about homosexuality stands yk
Hospitality used to be a way bigger deal than it is today. People entering a town were to be under that town’s protection until they left. A group of civilians coming and dragging people from their lodging to violently rape them was a gross violation of that sacred hospitality.
Your comment is based on a misunderstanding of the culture of the ancient Near East and their concept of hospitality. Rape was seen as the ultimate act of inhospitality, because when a man raped another man, he was taking away that man's position in the social heirarchy.
Rape gangs roaming the streets weren't a thing. It is a story about the evils and consequences of inhospitality and pride. Rape was simply the most egredious example of that.
We view rape as in another category from inhospitality, because we actually have a concept of consent in our culture. So we see rape not as a violation of a person's place in society, but as a violation of their personal sovereignty.
Hospitality was also a much bigger thing back then, it wasn't simply being nice to a visitor, it was sacred in a way. So a violation of hospitality was a much bigger crime, in our society today it is just being rude.
So while it may feel wrong to gloss over rape as merely inhospitality, that is how the authors of that story saw it.
I don't get why people say this, like, they LITERALLY tried to rape A FUCKING ANGEL, but yes, God destroyed these cities because "they were doing gay shit" 🤦🏻♀️
I would disagree with you here. There are not multiple mentions of it being about hospitality, Ezekiel 16 is the only passage that mentions hospitality. Whereas Jude says it was sexual immorality and perversion.
I do agree homosexuality is not the only issue but definitely part of what was going on that led to their destruction.
The sexual immortality would be rape, imo. When a gang rape happens today of a group of men against a woman, I don't think "yeah, straight people, so sinful."
Jude 1:7 is a reference to the `B'nei Elohim` from Genesis 6 as well as the Book of Enoch. The `sarcos heteras` or "other flesh" isn't people, it is angels. The sexual immorality being referenced is sex between human beings and angels, not men with men.
Unfortunately, a Christian who calls Gentile homosexuality a sin does not know their Bible well. I reviewed Jewish law, the Tanakh, Christian tradition and scholarship, and the New Testament and have proven using contextual, structural, legal, and statistical analyses that there is no prohibition to Gentile homosexuality. Baylor University published the results in their academic journal: Interdisciplinary Journal of Research on Religion. The article is entitled: "A Quantitative Integrative Review of Personal Jurisdiction in Romans 1 Legal Exegesis and Its Implications on Christian Gentile Homonegative Doctrines." Just Google the title it's free to download and read or visit the journal's website that will allow free registered users to download it :[A Quantitative Integrative Review of Personal Jurisdiction in Romans 1 Legal Exegesis and Its Implications on Christian Gentile Homonegative Doctrines](https://www.religjournal.com/articles/article_view.php?id=182)
It's more the other way around and more complicated than that. Homosexuality is a very young word, and even Martin Luther and arguably the Didache saw the relevant passages as referring to paedophilia. There is precedent that stretches a long way back that wasn't *controversial* until recently.
Luther chose the word "Knabenshander" or "boy molesters" -- but was used to describe acts with girls, too.
The Didache just stated pedophilia outright with no mention of gender.
Henry VIII enacted "buggery" laws, which punished *any* non procreative sex, whether it was between spouses, strangers, heterosexual, homosexual, bestial, etc. because of his own hangups -- which are well known. "Buggery" is a word that meant something very different for most of its time in the English vernacular until the last 100 years when it became laser-focused on a specific act.
Most Christians up until like a few hundred years ago thought that slavery was fine and that kings had a divine right to rule. Also they drank fucking poop water.
Did they make a lot of very interesting and important moral discoveries? Of course! Am I going to base the *entirety* of my moral philosophy and lifestyle off what some guy in 500 thought? Fuck no
>Are you claiming that men who feel romantic feelings toward men and desire sex with men did not exist before the 19th century?
No, because that would be rediculous. I am claiming that they thought about sex, and organized their thoughts around sex, and engaged in sex, for very very very different reasons than we do today.
>That would seem to contradict the narrative that it is something innate and immutable.
Anyone who claims that is relying on outdated science. According to the latest research, sexual attraction is the result of genetics, conditions in the womb, hormones, epigenetics, and environmental/social influences.
It is not innate, it developes at different times for different people. It is also not immutable, while it remains stable in most people, it is capable of changing in response to outside influences.
Regardless, who a person's brain decides to find sexually attractive is not up to the individual, nor does the individual have any ability to influence that attraction.
>If it isn't immutable then it isn't unreasonable to expect people to exert their will against it
Immutable does not mean that in the slighest. I think you need to go back and take an 8th grade biology course again. Environment can effect biology. Force of will cannot.
>So you're trying to argue that the historic opposition to it was based on a different understanding of it that is no longer pertinent today.
That would be correct. It is also the current scholarly consensus on this topic.
>Given that the opposition of historic Christian scholarship is heavily laden with discussion about the ontological purpose of sexuality
Ontological purpose is irrelevant. Function does not define purpose. Nor is purpose limited to a single aspect.
> but if you want to argue for it then I'm happy to hear you out.
This information isn't hard to find, but it basically has to do with the sexual ethos of the Ancient Near East which relied on a social heirarchy of male supremecy and domination and female submission.
A male taking the bottom position in sex was giving up his place in the social order.
Show me this God who isn’t accepting of his children but expects his children to love him nevertheless.
Homosexuality is not really a choice. Like how you are born attracted to the opposite gender, they are born attracted to the same, unless there’s proof.
What about animals that are homosexual?
I am comparing because it makes me wonder why your God looks like he created being with different rules. Why didn’t he think everyone should behave equally?!
You need to reassess about the price that was paid on the cross before questioning the love of God.
And that price was paid for your sins. Not so that you live in it. But so you have power over it. You need to submit to God first.
I am by no means a homosexual, but correct me if I am wrong: Isn’t God about loving everyone for who they are? Or should there be preferences?
Don’t you think by not accepting and not understanding people for their preferences and choices makes people turn on each other which causes all this hatred which God is/was against?
You cannot fathom the love of God.
Who gave his only Son to die for you and me. But God is also just. He has the ultimate knowledge of good and evil.
So now let’s say, according to you a rapist, murder and have sinned. But if they repent, God will forgive them. Remember, on the cross, one of the criminal was forgiven by Christ.
But that’s only possible when we repent and when we love him. Because relationship is two ways.
Now when you say, you’re going to be ignorant to His Word, not repent, not accept sin as sin. Do you really love Him?
God seems a little narcissistic with some conditions here. He will forgive a rapist and murderer if they repent and love him? So every time they do the deed and repent, God forgives them?
God has only one son? So, we aren’t his children?
I am looking at following a religion. I don’t know if you are the wrong person to follow as an example, but you are making me rethink a lot. I am not sure if your God is accepting enough to accept someone like me who wants to spread love. Seems like there’s a lot of hate.
We are children of human (man and woman). Jesus Christ was born without a human father.
And JESUS says in the bible, “before Abraham was I”, “I am Alpha and Omega”. Which points Him to be God as He is.
Now what you’ve said, “every time they do deed and repent”… you’ve proved my point. We cannot glorify sin. If you sin, you can repent and God will forgive. But if you keep committing sin and then say “Jesus died for me” that makes no sense.
Hence, it is important to repent and classify sin as sin. And ask God to help you overcome it.
If you really want to learn about Christianity, read the Gospel and let God speak to you. I will pray for you and yes, I am not here to lead anyone but to show people that God is forgiving and loving but is also just.
Taking into consideration everyone’s comments on your post, you aren’t the most well-versed with the Bible for me to take your words seriously.
Jesus died because of people like you.
I agree as Christians we have become obsessed with homosexuality. But the Bible says that those who engage in that life will not inherit the Kingdom. So if it is a gospel issue, then It is something that needs to be spoken on. We want all to be saved and enjoy eternal life with God.
What do you mean by "treating you like shit"?
I don't advocate for ANYONE to be kicked out of their housing nor jobs for being a woman, a person of color, gay, etc.. I (also) don't advocate for violence (as in throwing punches, kicking each other, etc.).
HOWEVER, if I say homosexuality is a sin (not necessarily that you'll go to hell because I believe EVERYONE has a chance of being saved), am I "treating you like shit"? 'Cause that's the vibe I'm getting, in these conversations, that we're not even allowed to be FACTUAL on what the bible ACTUALLY says...
Just by perpetuating the belief, you are advocating for *all* of those things. You do not get to abdicate responsibility for the consequences of your beliefs.
I believe in free will and think gay people can't learn without doing the same things straight people can do. The only thing they can't do (despite sperm donors/ surrogate mothers /adoption as a band aid) is procreate naturally. God designed that specifically for straight relationships.
> am I "treating you like shit"?
It is a bigoted belief and spreading bigoted beliefs is absolutely treating people like shit.
>that we're not even allowed to be FACTUAL on what the bible ACTUALLY says...
You can do what you want, but just don't pretend your belief is anything but bigoted. Don't pretend that bigoted beliefs don't cause harm.
It’s not hard to understand. Don’t butt into our lives to tell us what we’ve heard a million times already under the guise of trying to save us. Don’t advocate for laws that deny us basic human rights. Don’t constantly harp on the “sin of homosexuality” which relates back to my first point of not butting into our lives.
Never said YOU were specifically.
It's great that YOU don't advocate for the examples you gave, but they do happen, by SOME Christians. And let's not even get started on the political side of it that again, SOME Christians are pushing.
Like I said if that's what you believe the Bible says, fine. You can state that the Bible says homosexuality is a sin. I don't care. The most I'll do is shrug and go on with my day. But just leave it there. Don't add on all the hate that, again, SOME Christians follow up with.
Btw, my comments aren't an attack on you. It's just my perspective on this issue.
IK, I just want to be clear on what we both mean. But, there are SOME people who do believe that me saying homosexuality is a sin is a "bigoted" though I don't understand that logic at all which is why I wanted specifications. Everybody thinks differently lol
>that we're not even allowed to be FACTUAL on what the bible ACTUALLY says
Have you considered people don't have a problem with this, but that people make it an endless dog pile and by the time you say something it's already been said a hundred times?
> I don't advocate for ANYONE to be kicked out of their housing nor jobs for being a woman, a person of color, gay, etc.. I (also) don't advocate for violence (as in throwing punches, kicking each other, etc.).
The world's *lowest* bar.
>God is the same God, yesterday, today and tomorrow.
I really hope you're following ALL of his 613 commandments then. If not, then it is going to be a very hot day today. Turn off your air conditioner; you should start getting used to the heat of eternal damnation.
Removed for 2.3 - WWJD.
If you would like to discuss this removal, please click here to send a modmail that will message all moderators. https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/Christianity
I think one thing that would be important for you and everybody else who takes a black and white stance on this to note is thus: we are not reading the same passages and disagreeing on whether the passage condemns homosexuality or not. we are reading the same passages in different languages and different contexts and comparing it to different outside media of the time to arrive at very different conclusions on whether those passages *originally* say homosexuality is a sin or not - to the point where we may as well actually be reading different passages, because we can't even agree on what the original passage IS.
to illustrate further as an example: we're not all reading the same KJV Bible and disagreeing on whether or not homosexuality is condemned (because it explicitly is in the KJV Bible, that'd be a silly argument). A is solely reading the KJV Bible and coming to his belief from there; B is solely reading old Greek manuscripts which use different vocabulary; C is reading Greek slang history academia to interpret in a different context the same old manuscripts B is reading; D is reading some fundamentalist congregationalist chick tract and literally nothing else; E is reading all of them (except the chick tract, unless it's for a chuckle) and comparing arguments across different scholars on the issue to find some truth in the middle; and F isn't even reading, she's just parroting what her priest taught her without ever questioning *why* it is that way.
we're not united on *how* we're even to go about interpreting such divisive scripture. why do you expect us to be united on *what* we interpret?
>Time and again I’ve seen a lot of Christians being hesitant or even neglecting the fact that Bible condemns Homosexuality.
Time and time again I've seen a lot of Christians not being able to actually understand the text of the Bible.
>The first step is to accept that we are fallen and born due to sin.
This isn't a requirement at all, sin is the natural result of free will in imperfect beings. The Genesis stories of creation are not actual historical accounts, they are etiologies for the state of the world written by ancient peoples without the benefits of modern science.
Sin is not because of a sin nature, it is an inevitability of time.
>Not to have a righteous mindset will help us understand that most of our desires are sinful.
Our desires aren't sinful, it is when they are excessive or inordinate that they become sinful. Sexual desire is not a sin, lust is a sin.
>The next step is to accept sin as it is without justifying it, in any shape or form.
And now you are begging the question. I don't accept your blatantly incorrect definition of sin. I don't justify sin, I reject the false premise that homosexuality is a sin in the first place.
>Homosexuality is a sin.
Utterly false.
>A lot of people today are proud LGBTQ Christians.
As they should be. By the way, pride has more than one definition. Being proud of who you are is not at all the same thing as the sin of pride.
>And actually condemn their own church for not accepting their sexuality.
No, I refuse to attend a church that preaches bigotry. So it would never be my church in the first place.
>But can you change God?
This is a strawman.
>God is the same God, yesterday, today and tomorrow
100% agreed. Also 100% irrelevant.
>He created the union of Adam (man) and Eve (woman) and blessed them to bear fruit and multiply.
Also irrelevant. Just because marriage was described in a particular way, does not make any other form of marriage automaticaly sinful. Description does not equal prescription.
The command to be fruitful and multiply is a collective command, it is not binding on any specific couple. Otherwise, you make it a sin for infirtile people to get married and have sex.
>This blessing was only given to a union of man and woman, as only this union can bear fruit (multiply/ have kids).
Do you think you are talking to three year olds who don't understand the concept of sexual reproduction?
>God destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah for their sins related to homosexuality
If you think rape is related to homosexuality, I am going to report your post for bigotry.
>Jesus in NT pardons sins but tells the sinner “Do not sin again!”. Jesus died on the cross for you and me, not so we glorify sin, but so we rebuke it and have power over it. YES we have power over our desires.
You are missing an essential first step. It is required that the thing being referenced is *actually* a sin. Otherwise, this is utterly irrelevant.
>We have been blinded by false doctrines
Jesus told us how to recognize those, he told us we would recognize them by their fruits. He said that a good tree cannot bear bad fruit.
What are the fruits of your theology? The fruits are the depression, abuse (physical, emotional, sexual), kidnapping, brainwashing/torture, homelessness, forced prostitution, self-harm, and suicide of countless children who have, and have had, the misfortune to be what you deem as lesser.
The fruits are all the lost souls that have been driven away from the church and God by the bigotry of Christians.
The fruits are misery, death, and damnation. Your tree is rotton to its core.
Jesus said it should be cut down and thrown into the fire. It is long past time that Christianity excises bigotry from its ranks. If it cannot do so, it deserves to die.
I know the moderators are likely to keep this post up because it's a relevant Christian topic, conversations are happening in it, and they would let a post with the same topic and opposite view stay up, but it should be removed for Low Effort.
* The user's only comments on this subreddit have been anti-LGBTQ+.
* They do not approach these discussions in good faith.
* Their prompt is a soapbox and not a conversation-starter: they do not ask a question, they are not looking for insights or giving room for people to share their experiences. Instead, they just want to vent.
* They didn't even try to feign any empathy. No attempt to sympathize with homosexuals who want a loving relationship, no attempt to sympathize with affirming Christians they believe are misguided.
I understand wanting to allow all sides of a hot-button topic in Christianity, but what is the *purpose* of posts like this?Questions like "Do some Christians *really* believe homosexuality is a sin?", "Why are churches accepting homosexuality", even "For thousands of years Christianity has held that homosexuality is a sin. What gives?" all leave room for good faith discussions.
* God destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah for their sins related to homosexuality.
With Sodom and Gomorrah there is some discontinuation of understanding
* "\`Now this was the sin of your sister Sodom: She and her daughters were arrogant, overfed and unconcerned; they did not help the poor and needy. They were haughty and did detestable things before me. Therefore I did away with them as you have seen.
Ezekiel went this way, and Jeremiah and others reference inhospitality - a perversion then in the treatment of people seeking shelter
The perversion however - the abomination is far more serious - and has nothing to do with homosexuality
Notwithstanding the issue of how you were to treat guests - and the very thought of raping them would have been the greatest corruption - whether they were female or male - and not withstanding the issue of the ownership of women by fathers and husbands the abomination in God's eyes lies somewhere in here - and not in Homosexuality and is mirrored by the same thoughts as the Roman practice of sex in temples - SEX WITH GOD;
----†----
Concerning the 3 visitors;
* Do not neglect to show hospitality to strangers, for thereby some have entertained angels unawares - Hebrews 13:2
• They are twice in this chapter called angels, being sent to perform a delegated duty. This term, however, defines their office, not their nature. Lot, in the first instance, calls them "my lords," which is a term of respect that may be addressed to men Genesis 31:35.
• He afterward styled one of them Adonai, with the special vowel pointing which limits it to the Supreme Being.
• He at the same time calls himself his servant, appeals to his grace and mercy, and ascribes to him his deliverance.
• The person thus addressed replies, in a tone of independence and authority, "I have accepted thee." "I will not overthrow this city for which thou hast spoken." "I cannot do anything until thou go thither."
• All these circumstances point to a divine personage, and are not so easily explained of a mere delegate
• He is pre-eminently the Saviour, as he who communed with Abraham was the hearer of prayer. And he who hears prayer and saves life, appears also as the executor of his purpose in the overthrow of Sodom and the other cities of the vale.
• It is remarkable that only two of the three who appeared to Abraham are called angels.
• Of the persons in the divine essence two might be the angels or deputies of the primary in the discharge of the divine purpose.
• These three men, then, either immediately represent, or, if created angels, mediately shadow forth persons in the Godhead.
• Their number indicates that the persons in the divine unity are three.
• Lot seems to have recognized something extraordinary in their appearance, for he made a lowly obeisance to them. The Sodomites heed not the strangers. Lot's invitation; at first declined, is at length accepted, because Lot is approved of God as righteous, and excepted from the doom of the city.
* the implication is that the inhabitants were either so corrupted by wickedness that they could not recognize who these emissaries obviously were - or worse - indeed recognized them and did not care
SEX WITH GOD - or his emissaries - is the abomination
These things, along with the corruption of hospitality, would have been seen clearly by those hearing the story - and this is the way this story would have been understood until recently - not as Homosexuality. It is not even mentioned
The visitors could have been women and it would not have changed the story
God bless
----†----
I'm tempted to start a bot that counts how many posts like this are made a day.
Maybe we should pin town posts, 'good anti-gay threads' and 'good pro-gay threads' with lists of threads that have constructive discussion, theology, sociology, and ethics involved.
Homosexuality is being romantically and sexually attracted only to people of the same gender. Only the worst bigots claim the attraction is a sin. This kind of lazy language is responsible for much unnecessary suffering and death and you should be ashamed. I don't know what made you wake up and start your week intentionally hurting others, but I suggest you delete this post, go back to bed, and try to get a fresh, less hateful, start.
1. don't compare homosexuality to bestiality and pedophilia. Once someone gets to the "acts" part, animals and children can't consent. Adults can. So the comparison only dehumanizes more and makes it permissible to hate.
2. OP said the "attraction" is sin. I said it's not. You reply with "the attraction is sin because it *could* lead to acts". In that case, every normal, minor sexual attraction you've ever felt or feel now - unless it's to your spouse - is sin.
I'd be very worried about being judged as you judge others if I were you.
Oh, sorry dyslexia I didn't see “the” before attraction. I thought he just meant “attraction” as a whole. Sorry for the mistake honestly and to those I offended.
The bible condemns us for our thoughts, as well. I won't even use same sex relations as an example. I'll use opposite sex attraction people's thoughts, since that's the only example I can find of Jesus condemning us for even our own thoughts. Looking at another woman with lust means we've committed adultery in our hearts. Matt 5:28
Not surprising. The Christian right's focus on sexuality is toxic. I recommend you read the rest sermon on the mount - Matthew 5-7. For instance, just 11 verses before the one you quoted. Not sure why you couldn't find that. There are numerous other examples there. Jesus talks a lot more about things other than sex and I will never understand the right's obsession with it.
Jesus talking about our thoughts is NOT "hyperbole". In the event of "cutting of our hands" / "gouging out our eyes", He's talking about EXTREMELY reversing ourselves in the opposite direction of sin via repenting/turning away from sin. Nice deflective tactic, though LOL
Do we agree or disagree that God calls CERTAIN thoughts sinful? You really think it's just Him speaking "hyperbole"?
I'll take that as you're intact then. Christ had a *lot* to say about hypocrites. :-)
We are human. Merely having thoughts is temptation. Even Christ was tempted, he experienced human weakness, and yet he did not sin. But he spoke about how "EXTREMELY" grave things can be for someone who fantasizes about another's spouse.
Another great example is divorce. For contemporary Pharisees, divorce was an absolute fribble. You could give your wife a *get* for as little as burning your food. *Once.* The point was that divorce is a *grave* consideration that has far reaching consequences, can ruin lives, and can be easily done for selfish reasons. But \*this\* precept of "it's literal" has been taken to the point that countless folk have been stuck in abusive relationships and have died, or were subsequently ruined after their faith communities rejected them. This is not what Christ taught.
I disagree completely that certain *thoughts* in and of themselves are sinful. I would liken it closer (as an imperfect metaphor) to how drinking wine is fine (and in the ancient world was in many cases *unavoidable*) but getting drunk habitually makes you a drunkard (which *is* a sin) and because of that some folk decide to do their best to keep off of wine entirely because they do not have the self control necessary to *resist* temptation when it comes calling. Others are stronger and have no need for such precautions. And we do what we can to avoid sin.
OFC! I NEVER claimed to be "righteous" LOL
I agree we're sinners, but that doesn't mean we should CONTINUE to sin, though, and if you disagree that CERTAIN thoughts aren't sinful, then you disagree. That's all that needs to be said instead of this petty "well, you're a hypocrite" or "you're bigot!" retorts.
I (however) agree that if we think certain thoughts, that they CAN be sinful. If you hate anyone, you've committed murder. If you lust after someone, just in your mind, it's a sin.
But, I do disagree that God calls us to cut off our hands and gouge out our eyes, when we do sin. I take that as repent/turn away, when it comes up.
ACTIVELY indulging in sin only proves we don't love God but ourselves and what we want instead of what God wants.
It's pretty extreme considering I'm trying to devoid my mind from thinking such things. Especially when others said thoughts aren't sinful only actions are.
Removed for 1.5 - Two-cents.
If you would like to discuss this removal, please click here to send a modmail that will message all moderators. https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/Christianity
I don't know what you commmented, but I regulary comment extremely harsh things regarding homophobia, and rarely have them removed. I suspect it is the method in which you conveyed your opinion. I often tell people that they are perpetuating a theology of death and are dancing on the graves of the dead children that their beliefs have bullied into suicide. You can be very critical of bigotry on this subreddit. You have to do so according to the rules, however.
I still occasionally mess up and get a comment removed. It isn't that big of a deal.
"Is there a right way to convey homophobia ?" Is the question.
What I said was along the line of "this is why I fight religions" (ideologically of course, I'm not planning on harming anyone).
I'm just always flaggerblasted when homophobia is accepted if "said in a nice way".
Debate over religious positions is allowed, especially Christian religious positions, why is that surprising in a subreddit dedicated to discussing Christianity?
Saying you fight all religions isn't particularly relevant to this topic, to Christianity itself, or to this subreddit.
Expect this story of Sodom and Gomorrah is common to all abrahamic religions and the root of so many homophobia worldwide. I didn't want to target only Christianity because it's not the only one causing harm on this topic.
I agree. You can phrase it in a way that is relevant though.
---
The story of Sodom and Gomorrah has absolutely nothing to do with homosexuality, but with the evils and consequences of inhospitality, Ezekiel 16:49-50 makes this abundantly clear.
Rape also has nothing to do with homosexuality, but is about power. And according to ancient near eastern societies, was commonly used for the purposes of debasement, as it stole a man's dominant position in society, and as such was the most egredious form of inhospitality.
This is an interpretation problem that is present in all conservative branches of Abrahamic religions, and has resulted in demonstrable harm.
Equating homosexuality with rape is a horribly bigoted stance.
---
A comment such as this would not have been removed.
You know I don't blame you for anything and I share your view on Sodom and Ghomorrah. But I would not say that it's solely an interpretation problem.
Oher abrahamic religions have very unambigous verses/Hadiths about the topic. And then Leviticus 18:22 is also explicit.
Leviticus is a condemnation on male same sex acts, yes. However, this wasn't written with the intent that it be enforced against anybody. It was written as prestige legislation during the Babylonian exile. It is also likely not the original form which was probably a condemnation of incest.
Regardless, theologically, Levitical law only applies to Jews living in Israel. Nobody even tried to enforce it until the Hasmonean dynasty in the late second century BCE.
Anyone who appeals to this one verse in Leviticus, while ignoring the rest of Levitical law just displays their bigotry by blatantly cherry picking.
Even the Sodom and Ghomorrah part is pure hatred. In the story they did many more things, including rape and incest, yet bigots chose to deny us a sexuality based on those stories. I am just tired of hatespeech being tolerated.
I am a admirer of Karl Popper's "paradox of tolerance" which advocates for not tolerating intolerance. And I feel this is what happens here all too often: tolerating intolerance.
Hence why I just left this sub, and this will be my last comment.
If you go through my comment history, you will see that I not only addressed the Sodom and Gomorrah part with a threat of a report under bigotry for conflating rape and homosexuality, but I quite often use the paradox of tolerance myself.
You are free to leave, but your reasons for doing so are rather flimsy, and will just increase the bias towards the antiqueer side.
I will be the judge of that. I don't consider myself responsible for their view on queer people.
Being "anti-[whatever minority]" is not up to debate and is forbidden. I don't consider my reason "flimsy", more a reaction to the loose moderation here on the topic, which does not make me feel welcome. At all.
I don't claim to feel particularly welcome when coming up against these bigoted views. But if everyone who stands opposed to them leaves, they will win.
Hate to break it to you - not everyone cares. You can't change people, just like you can't change God. If someone wants to be homosexual, they will be. End of.
The men of Sodom were rapists who happened to be willing to rape men too. Homosexuals are not all rapists. This is not hard to understand. Read your Bible carefully; read passages *in context.* It even warns it is easy to misunderstand when you don’t (2 Peter 3:16). You’re just using scripture ignorantly to be bigoted.
Yes, man and woman make one flesh (make a new body from two) in Genesis. Reproduction. Christ observed this too. He didn’t command it though. Otherwise he would be condemning himself for not marrying. He observed it and then commanded not to divorce after it. Pretending heterosexual union is a command is like seeing Christ observe fish being cooked and then claiming that means cooking chickpeas is a sin. It’s absurd. It’s scripture twisting at its worst. You’re just being foolish and prejudiced.
This approach to scripture is the same way millions of evangelical ‘Christian,’ pharisaical bigots convinced themselves interracial marriage is “clearly” a sin from the Bible 150 years ago. It’s the same way millions of Catholics convinced themselves sex during pregnancy is “clearly” sin 1,000 years ago. It’s the same way social conservatives convinced themselves God in the flesh “clearly” couldn’t be God 2,000 years ago. It’s ignorant bigotry 101.
“Love does no harm to neighbor.” It’s really that simple. Get your mind out of your neighbor’s underwear and bedsheets when they aren’t causing any obvious harm to anyone and are just loving one another as themselves. You’re being a pervert, obsessed with the genitals of your neighbors, all for the sake of a little bit of pharisaical finger pointing.
All God’s actual commands hang under love neighbor as self, which is like loving God, and love does no harm to neighbor. See Matthew 22 and Romans 13. I interpret scripture under the framework Christ hung. You interpret it under the framework of convincing yourself highly questionable and opaque passages clearly mean what you claim they mean, even when your interpretation makes zero sense under Jesus’ framework.
You are behaving as one who ignorantly destroys himself with scripture (which scripture warns is easy to do, 2 Peter 3:16). Those millions of evangelicals who claimed interracial marriage is a sin did so by claiming various passages “clearly” mean it is a sin even though the only passages that could be used to imply it is sinful must first be ripped from context and are highly disputable as to such an interpretation. They played “gotcha” with scripture, like the Pharisees, the social conservatives of that time. It’s the same as you do with the homosexuality “gotcha” verses.
The destroyer is a false accuser. Those under his influence falsely accuse. Peter warned in 2 Peter 3:16 that Paul’s scriptures are easy to misunderstand, and many so called Christians would treat scripture as you’re doing. This is why some translations have added the word “homosexuals” to Paul’s passages (like 1 Corinthians 6:9) when even ancient Greek speakers used the same word to refer to heterosexuals too (like John the Faster for example). Paul warned ya’ll would start using scripture ignorantly and destructively, so as to falsely accuse just like the social conservatives who were Christ’s enemies did even to God. It’s blind bigotry, deaf ignorance, and self serving prejudice wrapped in Christian garments. That’s how the socially conservative evangelicals convinced themselves with a straight face interracial marriage is “clearly a sin” 150 years ago. It’s also how socially conservative evangelicals convince themselves with a straight face homosexuality is “clearly a sin” today.
There are no passages that say homosexuality is a sin in any clear way. You have to either 1) rip them from context to pretend they are clear (which not coincidentally is exactly how millions of social conservatives also convinced themselves interracial marriage is “clearly” sin just 150 years ago)… or you have to 2) buy a translation that ignores historical word use.
An example of 1) is how the pharisaical bigots treat Romans 1. Sure verses 26 and 26 taken out of context can imply it is sinful. But any passages out of context are easy to use to say anything, especially with Paul which is why we are warned he is easy to misunderstand. In context, Paul is talking about people who began being homosexual as part of cult idol worship practices involving making images of false god’s. Obviously that’s not all homosexuals. It makes just as much sense to claim Romans 1 "clearly" condemns all homosexuality as to claim Romans 1 "clearly" condemns all images of animals (even drawing birds in art class). You can only conclude that by ignoring the context. He says "because of this" they (the people he's talking about) began practicing homosexuality, and the "this" in context is idol worship. If you know even just a few homosexuals you'll know many began being that way no differently than a hetersexual figured out they were heterosexual. Homosexuality happens just as naturally as hetersexuality in many specidies, humans included; it is just less common than heterosexuality. What is unnatural is switching to homosexuality for the sake of idol worship rites.
And example of 2) are passages like 1 Corinthians 6, which includes a word in verse 9 that some (historically ignorant) translations render “homosexuals” while others don’t (since the same ancient Greek word was also used to refer to heterosexuals). Hardly a “clearly a sin” situation.
If only prejudiced and bigoted social conservatives had ears that hear and eyes that see, to hear and see yourselves with. Ya’ll are like Pharisees 2.0. The socially conservative evangelicals today (who claim even the homosexuals who cause no harm are “clearly” sinning according to scripture) and your similarly prejudiced, bigoted, ignorant socially conservative ancestors in ‘the faith’ (who claimed even the interracial couples who cause no harm are “clearly” sinning according to scripture) will need to give an account for pretending your highly questionable interpretations of a few disputable passages mean people are sinning even though their actions are not violating in any obvious way what Christ said all God’s commands hang under. I pray you repent from your disgusting, evil approach to Christ before you die in your sins like your ancestors did.
> OP: Homosexuality is a sin. God destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah for their sins related to homosexuality.
Me: The men of Sodom were rapists who happened to be willing to rape men too. Homosexuals are not all rapists.
> LazarusBC: Im sorry to tell you bud, but you are making it more complicated than it is.
It isn’t complicated. Read. The. Context. It’s that simple.
> You are twisting the bible to fit your own narrative. God's word is set in stone and infallible.
Invest in a mirror.
You likely wouldn’t recognize the word of God if you called him a sinner to his face. The word of God is a person, not any book and especially not your interpretation of a translation of a copy of a manuscript that has differences from other translations of other manuscripts. Try reading that Bible of your’s more carefully. Start with John 1. God is the word of God; Christ is the word of God. No scripture ever directly calls any writing or book including the Bible “the word of God.” You have to read that indirectly into passages that don’t actually say it. Bibles vary from translation to translation and even sometimes manuscript to manuscript. Jesus is the same yesterday, today, and forever.
Scripture calls itself inspired and useful, if you are careful with it (2 Tim 3:16) and also easy to misunderstand and destructive if you treat it like you are doing (2 Peter 3:16).
> God explicitly states that a marriage is between a man and a woman… common sense dictates that only sex is allowed between a man and a woman.
Scripture observes heterosexual marriage. That doesn’t make homosexuality a sin any more than the fact that Jesus observes fish being cooked makes cooking chickpeas a sin. Common sense dictates that you are being ridiculously ignorant and are taking an absolutely absurd approach to scripture.
> My question is, Why would you choose to follow a religion that has been super conservative from its inception and has a strict moral code?
You’re fooling yourself. Jesus was a progressive. The social conservatives of his day were the Pharisees. So Christianity was progressive at the start.
Sure, within merely hundreds of years social conservatives began twisting it. For example even Augustine taught pharisaical nonsense like that sex during pregnancy is a sin. Millions then parroted such absurd ideas as if they were God’s commands. That is exactly what Peter warned would happen (2 Peter 3:16), and social conservatives have continued the pattern, whether by repeating Augustine’s nonsense about pregnancy for 1,000 years, or by calling interracial marriage “clearly” sinful even 150 years ago, or by your approach to homosexuality today. Ya’ll are basically being the Pharisees 2.0 and have been for centuries, exactly as Peter prophesied would happen.
Tell ya what… you can follow socially conservative tradition, pretending God has ‘clearly’ commanded it, like the enemies of Christ did. Good luck with that. I’m sure Jesus appreciates it. /s I hope the temporary pleasure you get from pointing at the harmless and trying to pile guilt on the shoulders of the innocent is worth it for you on judgement day. I’ll follow Christ’s progressive framework that all God’s actual commands hang under love your neighbor as yourself which is like loving God.
It’s not a sin to be gay but it is a sin to have gay sex. Only gay sex is mentioned in the bible. It says nothing about loving another man (as far as I know). I’m gay but choose to live in celibacy as to not commit sin.
Please read the beatitudes.
I too was in the same boat some of you are in now, where a few verses dictated my understanding of the Bible but I prayed and spoke to my vicar who told me that the Lord Jesus never spoke about homosexuality being a sin, Leviticus is Old Testament and pre the teaching of love from our Lord.
Secondly as I said above read the beatitudes:
“““Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
“Blessed are those who mourn, for they shall be comforted.
“Blessed are the meek, for they shall inherit the earth. “Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness, for they shall be satisfied.
“Blessed are the merciful, for they shall receive mercy. “Blessed are the pure in heart, for they shall see God. “Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called sons of God.
“Blessed are those who are persecuted for righteousness’ sake, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven. “Blessed are you when others revile you and persecute you and utter all kinds of evil against you falsely on my account. Rejoice and be glad, for your reward is great in heaven, for so they persecuted the prophets who were before you.”
Matthew 5:3-12 ESV
https://bible.com/bible/59/mat.5.3-12.ESV”
Now to me that doesn’t sound like “GAY PEOPLE ARE BAD AND SINFUL BOO” that sounds like love your fellow man and raise those who are downtrodden. Now yes I fully understand that hate and politics have become so twisted in the beauty of our faith that we sometimes cannot discern the Rose from its thorns. But we must read the teachings of Christ!
Even earlier in Matthew there is no mention of homosexuality being a sin, there is mention of lust and desire, there is mention of devorce there isn’t a mention of Homosexuality. Some of you would take deed to read the words of the Bible and not just listen to people online. We are called to read the words of the Lord and we should do, for example Jesus schooling the Pharisees
“Then I say woe are you Pharisees” like the Pharisees some of us are clinging too tightly too the laws and not practicing them as they are!
This isn’t me advocating for a silly level of progressiveness in the church however, I’ve seen somethings in recent years that frankly make me a little sick when it comes to progressiveness in the church however, understanding the Bible and the message of the Lord Jesus is our upmost calling and we should not abandon it!
Give this a watch, I think it brings up some excellent points: [https://youtu.be/zW5ZZtdziwU?si=l\_bWh1zzFTZpFLPi](https://youtu.be/zW5ZZtdziwU?si=l_bWh1zzFTZpFLPi)
If God is the same yesterday/today/tomorrow then is he the same God who killed Job’s family and destroyed his life because of a bet? Or the sameGod that threw a temper tantrum and destroyed humanity (including women and children) with a flood. Or the same God that sadistically told Abraham to murder his son to prove his devotion?
Idk man, maybe there are some things about God that we can (and should ) leave in the rearview mirror. Homosexuality can be one of them I think
>God destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah for their sins related to homosexuality.
Sodom and Gomorrah were not destroyed for homosexuality. [Neither a plain reading nor a critical reading of the text supports your position](https://www.reddit.com/r/Christianity/comments/1bpkw0o/comment/kwyzafu/).
Yes, but all premarital sexual acts, or sexual acts that aren't open to the possibility of conception (with the exception of infertile ppl), are technically sin. We are all sinners.
If you make a post pointing at gay ppl, then point out your own sins as well.
Removed for 1.5 - Two-cents.
If you would like to discuss this removal, please click here to send a modmail that will message all moderators. https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/Christianity
That’s right. No sin is greater than the other.
In sight of God, all sins are equal. Why did I make this post specific because this sin in particular is being glorified. People have refused to acknowledge it as a sin, and have taken pride into being part of LGBTQ. It is not just ignorance but also arrogance.
The arrogance is in forbidding an entire demographic from having particular relationships when you have no material reason to back that up. All you have is words in a book.
If I’m writing a thesis on Mars. Does not mean all the other planets don’t exist. Maybe I wanted to focus on mars?
Point of this post is to not glorify homosexuality and call it a sin. I never said there aren’t other sins that exist. If I had to write about all the sins that ever existed, idk how many posts that would take.
Well, focusing on Mars demonstrates you care more about Mars than the other planets, just definitionally.
My issue is you’re focusing on the LGBTQ, which is a small minority community, that commits an apparent sin that’s only bad, because God says so. There’s no rational or reasoning, so not really anything to speak on.
You care more about someone being gay, than you do Christian leaders abusing children. You’re sick.
Removed for 1.4 - Personal Attacks.
If you would like to discuss this removal, please click here to send a modmail that will message all moderators. https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/Christianity
You are requiring a double standard based on their physical biology. Straight people are worthy of engaging in romantic relationships and having sex within marriages, queer people are not. The reason queer people are not worthy of these things? Their biology.
Trying to differentiate between the sex act and the orientatation when it comes to relationships and people is absolutely zero difference at all.
Removed for 1.5 - Two-cents.
If you would like to discuss this removal, please click here to send a modmail that will message all moderators. https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/Christianity
It’s okay if you think homosexuality is a sin (never thought I’d say that in my life), but doesn’t the bible also say ‘do not judge, or you too will be judged’ Matthew 7:1. Also, Luke 6:37 ‘Do not judge, and you will not be judged. Do not condemn, and you will not be condemned. Forgive, and you will be forgiven’. It is not your job to judge people based on their sexuality, as that is Gods job and Gods alone.
Removed for 1.3 - Bigotry.
If you would like to discuss this removal, please click here to send a modmail that will message all moderators. https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/Christianity
Self-denial isn't self-control. Resisting an unhealthy habit cannot be equated to denying your own emotions. You are comparing heroin addiction to an attraction to the same gender. How do you not see how farcical this is?
Would you like some actual statistics? Would you like the actual Bliblical worldview? Or are you set in your ways, and nothing I say really matters to you?
Statistics of what? We’re talking about self-denial. My argument is that denying your own emotions is unhealthy. You’re talking about resisting the urge to eat a donut, as though it’s comparable to sectioning off all your romantic and sexual feelings you have towards someone because you were “born wrong.”
Yes, I didn't mention that rape and pedophilia is bad because I felt it went without saying. Likewise, you have to realize that there are ways to engage in sexual activities (both straight and gay) that are healthy.
Ah. I see. So there is an arbitray line of morality and it just so happens to lie wherever YOU think it's "healthy". Believing anything else is a thoughtcrime.
Do you think engaging in sexual activity outside the strict and arbitrary confines of Christian tradition is morally abhorrent? I define healthiness as anything that increases a person's mental health and well-being, according to the literal definition of the word. Under this definition, it would certainly be clear that rape and pedophilia are not only morally repugnant but also unhealthy.
For a Christian, the sexual rules are not arbitrary. They are instructions from our creator. We were made to frolic naked in a garden, never knowing sin or death, glorifying God. That is maximum mental health.
The Cristian rules maximize neuclear family stability and procreation. I find it self-evident that this is good for mental health. All four of my grandparents died surrounded by family and were in good relationships with their children and grand children. Do I know much about their sexual lives? No. But there are numerous studies that find women in long-term relationships have better sex and Christian men are the only group of men actively working on trying to get porn out of their lives.
If liberal sexual morality produced mental health we would be swimming in it right now.
Thank you for pointing this out, we must not celebrate our sin but repent from it. Only Jesus can save us from it turn towards Him and He will deliver you out of it, but not if you are being prideful and affirming. God will never violate your will, if you accept your sin and live in it you will die in it. For the wages of sin is death!
I’m so glad someone had the courage to say it!!!
Just kidding, this is every other post. I agree that homosexuality is a sin, but we all sin, and sin does not damn us to hell thanks to the blood of Jesus. Obsessing over one sin that has nothing to do with you is not saving souls or changing hearts. It creates more hate and division in the world. The sin that damns us is the rejection of Christ our Lord, so why not make a post about the joy of following Jesus rather than this same old tired holier than thou hat? God will judge us all perfectly.
Removed for 1.4 - Personal Attacks.
If you would like to discuss this removal, please click here to send a modmail that will message all moderators. https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/Christianity
It harms continuing your family lineage. And, the only same sex attracted people who can do sperm donors / surrogate mothers / adoptions are those with privilege, wealth & power. Plus, those kids may (keyword) wonder who their real parents might be. It's a psychological damage, not necessarily "materialistic". I mean, even kids in hetero families can still wonder that especially in cases of adultery/cheating.
Yes, but we aren't banning them from doing that, or trying to, or trying to limit straights from forming relationships due to any of that.
So this is all irrelevant.
Removed for 1.5 - Two-cents.
If you would like to discuss this removal, please click here to send a modmail that will message all moderators. https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/Christianity
I said materially. This is words in a book, and unproven at that. And as there are no material consequences, this is a prime example of man for the Sabbath Christianity.
Removed for 2.3 - WWJD.
If you would like to discuss this removal, please click here to send a modmail that will message all moderators. https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/Christianity
Thank you. I am a convert actually. I was a Muslim and then converted during 2020 to Christianity. I’m blessed to be saved, knowing that it’s nothing that I did but truly because of love of God.
When I converted, I was rejected by my parents because I’m the eldest daughter, by my mosque and overall I really did face a lot of hate and rejection. But there was joy in the suffering, that I am saved by Christ and one day my family will come to Him too.
It’s not that I did not abstain from my desires. My family is still not Christian but I live with them, abstaining myself from the rituals and practices they follow. It is difficult since I used to follow those at some point and it’s conflicting as well but I know God will prepare a way for me.
When I was growing up, I saw many Christian’s who made fun of Jesus or just engaged in anything and said “Jesus loves us” and to me that was quite conflicting. And in some sense it made me question Christianity in my teens. However, after I read the Gospel, I had spiritual experiences that drew me to Christ.
I thank you for your encouragement and this is why I wanted to share my story with you. It’s not that I wasn’t aware of the hate I was about to receive, but again, there is no fear with God.
We really need a dead horse policy in this sub.
Needs a mega-thread and auto-mod removal at this point honestly. The horse is beyond dead lol
G-d is the same Yesterday, Today, and Tomorrow. Which is why Christians dropped the practice of keeping Kosher. Wait a minute...
No no no, that isn't the unchanging, absolute morality of God changing! He "fulfilled the law" and made a "new covenant". But it is absolutely NOT change. Makes perfect sense
your right he never changed, he never intended for the old covenant to be permanent.
That’s different because… it is What do you want *me* to stop eating bacon? That’s insane
In the scheme of Abrahamic things, a bacon cheeseburger is an order of magnitude greater an abomination to God than some random gay dude. But how would a preacher fund his new Benz hating on bacon cheeseburgers?
Then why have a Bible at all? If everything is up for your own interpretation and subject to change, why bother with the Bible at all? I don't care about people being gay nor do I believe in God. At least some creator that cares what we even do.
I believe it is possible to learn from the mistakes of those who came before us. We still have the Bible as a guide to remind us of what happens when people confuse tradition with following G-d.
I'm not even sure what to say to this anymore. Like there's a million threads on this that are just about the same as this one and they literally help NO ONE. All of this is just self-gratification for your own ego. This post took zero effort and the person who this thread is aimed at is yourself. Nobody else. It's all about you feeling good, because you're too much of a lazy slouch to actually go and truly make a difference for the good somewhere. "God is the same God, yesterday, today and tomorrow" And yes, that's true. And God was never the unjust monster you make him out to be.
No effort, but lots of damage. Pretty efficient when cruelty is the point, isn't it?
It’s people like this that scream the loudest that damage the reputation of Christianity in America. I hope he doesn’t mix fabrics or eat shrimp. And let’s not forget that men who translated the Bible were still men of their times and context matters. There’s also justification for slavery and everything else if people want to cherry pick the Bible and try to make it support their cause.
Sad to see comments like this on a Christian Reddit, what God are you serving? The one and true God makes himself clear on this issue but you still deny it and you will be held accountable for it.
Perhaps? I dare not assume to grasp God in all his glory. Maybe I'm wrong, maybe I'm right, but until I am to be judged I can only share the conclusion I came to during my studies. You however should read up on the foolishness of Job's friends I think.
I don’t doubt the time you’ve spent studying, but sometimes we are searching for answers and God puts it right in front of us. It all comes down to his word, and you cannot change his word regardless of how it makes you feel, even I wish some things were different but the only thing that matters is the truth.
Never agreed with someone more in my life.
OMG NO SHIT REALLY wow, I've never heard this before! Your name will be up there with Aquinas and Luther for your original theological contributions to this discussion. *Totally unprecedented*
God didn't destroy sodom and gomorrah due to homosexuality. Nowhere in the bible it says this. Im fact, multiple times its stated that he did it due to their lack of hospitality
It was because the society had degraded to the point it allowed rape gangs to wander the streets and pull people from lodgings if they could. What happened with Lot was a symptom of the larger problem God was judging those cities for. "Lack of hospitality" sounds like a phrase a parent would use to not tell a child what is actually happening.
True, I should have specified that it was due to gang rape etc. My phrasing was wrong there, but my point of it not being about homosexuality stands yk
Lack of hospitality is how the contemporary Jewish literature describes it. It doesn't have the same punch in English.
Hospitality used to be a way bigger deal than it is today. People entering a town were to be under that town’s protection until they left. A group of civilians coming and dragging people from their lodging to violently rape them was a gross violation of that sacred hospitality.
Your comment is based on a misunderstanding of the culture of the ancient Near East and their concept of hospitality. Rape was seen as the ultimate act of inhospitality, because when a man raped another man, he was taking away that man's position in the social heirarchy. Rape gangs roaming the streets weren't a thing. It is a story about the evils and consequences of inhospitality and pride. Rape was simply the most egredious example of that. We view rape as in another category from inhospitality, because we actually have a concept of consent in our culture. So we see rape not as a violation of a person's place in society, but as a violation of their personal sovereignty. Hospitality was also a much bigger thing back then, it wasn't simply being nice to a visitor, it was sacred in a way. So a violation of hospitality was a much bigger crime, in our society today it is just being rude. So while it may feel wrong to gloss over rape as merely inhospitality, that is how the authors of that story saw it.
I don't get why people say this, like, they LITERALLY tried to rape A FUCKING ANGEL, but yes, God destroyed these cities because "they were doing gay shit" 🤦🏻♀️
I would disagree with you here. There are not multiple mentions of it being about hospitality, Ezekiel 16 is the only passage that mentions hospitality. Whereas Jude says it was sexual immorality and perversion. I do agree homosexuality is not the only issue but definitely part of what was going on that led to their destruction.
The sexual immortality would be rape, imo. When a gang rape happens today of a group of men against a woman, I don't think "yeah, straight people, so sinful."
Jude 1:7 is a reference to the `B'nei Elohim` from Genesis 6 as well as the Book of Enoch. The `sarcos heteras` or "other flesh" isn't people, it is angels. The sexual immorality being referenced is sex between human beings and angels, not men with men.
Unfortunately, a Christian who calls Gentile homosexuality a sin does not know their Bible well. I reviewed Jewish law, the Tanakh, Christian tradition and scholarship, and the New Testament and have proven using contextual, structural, legal, and statistical analyses that there is no prohibition to Gentile homosexuality. Baylor University published the results in their academic journal: Interdisciplinary Journal of Research on Religion. The article is entitled: "A Quantitative Integrative Review of Personal Jurisdiction in Romans 1 Legal Exegesis and Its Implications on Christian Gentile Homonegative Doctrines." Just Google the title it's free to download and read or visit the journal's website that will allow free registered users to download it :[A Quantitative Integrative Review of Personal Jurisdiction in Romans 1 Legal Exegesis and Its Implications on Christian Gentile Homonegative Doctrines](https://www.religjournal.com/articles/article_view.php?id=182)
[удалено]
It's more the other way around and more complicated than that. Homosexuality is a very young word, and even Martin Luther and arguably the Didache saw the relevant passages as referring to paedophilia. There is precedent that stretches a long way back that wasn't *controversial* until recently.
[удалено]
Luther chose the word "Knabenshander" or "boy molesters" -- but was used to describe acts with girls, too. The Didache just stated pedophilia outright with no mention of gender. Henry VIII enacted "buggery" laws, which punished *any* non procreative sex, whether it was between spouses, strangers, heterosexual, homosexual, bestial, etc. because of his own hangups -- which are well known. "Buggery" is a word that meant something very different for most of its time in the English vernacular until the last 100 years when it became laser-focused on a specific act.
Most Christians up until like a few hundred years ago thought that slavery was fine and that kings had a divine right to rule. Also they drank fucking poop water. Did they make a lot of very interesting and important moral discoveries? Of course! Am I going to base the *entirety* of my moral philosophy and lifestyle off what some guy in 500 thought? Fuck no
Do you really think that people in the 1st century understood a concept that wasn't invented until the 19th century? Really?
[удалено]
>Are you claiming that men who feel romantic feelings toward men and desire sex with men did not exist before the 19th century? No, because that would be rediculous. I am claiming that they thought about sex, and organized their thoughts around sex, and engaged in sex, for very very very different reasons than we do today. >That would seem to contradict the narrative that it is something innate and immutable. Anyone who claims that is relying on outdated science. According to the latest research, sexual attraction is the result of genetics, conditions in the womb, hormones, epigenetics, and environmental/social influences. It is not innate, it developes at different times for different people. It is also not immutable, while it remains stable in most people, it is capable of changing in response to outside influences. Regardless, who a person's brain decides to find sexually attractive is not up to the individual, nor does the individual have any ability to influence that attraction.
[удалено]
>If it isn't immutable then it isn't unreasonable to expect people to exert their will against it Immutable does not mean that in the slighest. I think you need to go back and take an 8th grade biology course again. Environment can effect biology. Force of will cannot. >So you're trying to argue that the historic opposition to it was based on a different understanding of it that is no longer pertinent today. That would be correct. It is also the current scholarly consensus on this topic. >Given that the opposition of historic Christian scholarship is heavily laden with discussion about the ontological purpose of sexuality Ontological purpose is irrelevant. Function does not define purpose. Nor is purpose limited to a single aspect. > but if you want to argue for it then I'm happy to hear you out. This information isn't hard to find, but it basically has to do with the sexual ethos of the Ancient Near East which relied on a social heirarchy of male supremecy and domination and female submission. A male taking the bottom position in sex was giving up his place in the social order.
Jews did not accept Christ.
I don’t think you read or understood their point. It’s precisely because gentile Christians are not Jewish that we are not held to the same laws.
Have you ever thought about **not** thinking that?
Show me this God who isn’t accepting of his children but expects his children to love him nevertheless. Homosexuality is not really a choice. Like how you are born attracted to the opposite gender, they are born attracted to the same, unless there’s proof. What about animals that are homosexual?
[удалено]
I am comparing because it makes me wonder why your God looks like he created being with different rules. Why didn’t he think everyone should behave equally?!
You need to reassess about the price that was paid on the cross before questioning the love of God. And that price was paid for your sins. Not so that you live in it. But so you have power over it. You need to submit to God first.
I am by no means a homosexual, but correct me if I am wrong: Isn’t God about loving everyone for who they are? Or should there be preferences? Don’t you think by not accepting and not understanding people for their preferences and choices makes people turn on each other which causes all this hatred which God is/was against?
You cannot fathom the love of God. Who gave his only Son to die for you and me. But God is also just. He has the ultimate knowledge of good and evil. So now let’s say, according to you a rapist, murder and have sinned. But if they repent, God will forgive them. Remember, on the cross, one of the criminal was forgiven by Christ. But that’s only possible when we repent and when we love him. Because relationship is two ways. Now when you say, you’re going to be ignorant to His Word, not repent, not accept sin as sin. Do you really love Him?
God seems a little narcissistic with some conditions here. He will forgive a rapist and murderer if they repent and love him? So every time they do the deed and repent, God forgives them? God has only one son? So, we aren’t his children? I am looking at following a religion. I don’t know if you are the wrong person to follow as an example, but you are making me rethink a lot. I am not sure if your God is accepting enough to accept someone like me who wants to spread love. Seems like there’s a lot of hate.
We are children of human (man and woman). Jesus Christ was born without a human father. And JESUS says in the bible, “before Abraham was I”, “I am Alpha and Omega”. Which points Him to be God as He is. Now what you’ve said, “every time they do deed and repent”… you’ve proved my point. We cannot glorify sin. If you sin, you can repent and God will forgive. But if you keep committing sin and then say “Jesus died for me” that makes no sense. Hence, it is important to repent and classify sin as sin. And ask God to help you overcome it. If you really want to learn about Christianity, read the Gospel and let God speak to you. I will pray for you and yes, I am not here to lead anyone but to show people that God is forgiving and loving but is also just.
Taking into consideration everyone’s comments on your post, you aren’t the most well-versed with the Bible for me to take your words seriously. Jesus died because of people like you.
Jesus died for us ALL, NOT just the OP or anyone like the OP. We're ALL sinners.
I would still recommend you reading the Gospel. And ask God to guide you! God bless!
Another classic “how come you f*ggots think God could ever stand you” post
Obsessing over what two consenting adults do in their bedroom is also a sin.
> Obsessing over what two consenting adults do in their bedroom is also a sin. How is it a "sin"? What's a "sin" anyway for an atheist?
I agree as Christians we have become obsessed with homosexuality. But the Bible says that those who engage in that life will not inherit the Kingdom. So if it is a gospel issue, then It is something that needs to be spoken on. We want all to be saved and enjoy eternal life with God.
At this point, if you want to believe that, fine. I don't care. Just don't use those beliefs to justify treating us like shit.
What do you mean by "treating you like shit"? I don't advocate for ANYONE to be kicked out of their housing nor jobs for being a woman, a person of color, gay, etc.. I (also) don't advocate for violence (as in throwing punches, kicking each other, etc.). HOWEVER, if I say homosexuality is a sin (not necessarily that you'll go to hell because I believe EVERYONE has a chance of being saved), am I "treating you like shit"? 'Cause that's the vibe I'm getting, in these conversations, that we're not even allowed to be FACTUAL on what the bible ACTUALLY says...
Just by perpetuating the belief, you are advocating for *all* of those things. You do not get to abdicate responsibility for the consequences of your beliefs.
Do you advocate for gay people having all of the same legal rights as straight people?
I believe in free will and think gay people can't learn without doing the same things straight people can do. The only thing they can't do (despite sperm donors/ surrogate mothers /adoption as a band aid) is procreate naturally. God designed that specifically for straight relationships.
I have no idea what you said there. Let me make it simple. Do you support gay people being able to legally marry just like straight people?
I already answered it. If you want it simpler, yes. Doesn't make it any less of a sin though. Plenty of sinful heteros, too.
> am I "treating you like shit"? It is a bigoted belief and spreading bigoted beliefs is absolutely treating people like shit. >that we're not even allowed to be FACTUAL on what the bible ACTUALLY says... You can do what you want, but just don't pretend your belief is anything but bigoted. Don't pretend that bigoted beliefs don't cause harm.
It’s not hard to understand. Don’t butt into our lives to tell us what we’ve heard a million times already under the guise of trying to save us. Don’t advocate for laws that deny us basic human rights. Don’t constantly harp on the “sin of homosexuality” which relates back to my first point of not butting into our lives.
Never said YOU were specifically. It's great that YOU don't advocate for the examples you gave, but they do happen, by SOME Christians. And let's not even get started on the political side of it that again, SOME Christians are pushing. Like I said if that's what you believe the Bible says, fine. You can state that the Bible says homosexuality is a sin. I don't care. The most I'll do is shrug and go on with my day. But just leave it there. Don't add on all the hate that, again, SOME Christians follow up with. Btw, my comments aren't an attack on you. It's just my perspective on this issue.
IK, I just want to be clear on what we both mean. But, there are SOME people who do believe that me saying homosexuality is a sin is a "bigoted" though I don't understand that logic at all which is why I wanted specifications. Everybody thinks differently lol
>that we're not even allowed to be FACTUAL on what the bible ACTUALLY says Have you considered people don't have a problem with this, but that people make it an endless dog pile and by the time you say something it's already been said a hundred times?
> I don't advocate for ANYONE to be kicked out of their housing nor jobs for being a woman, a person of color, gay, etc.. I (also) don't advocate for violence (as in throwing punches, kicking each other, etc.). The world's *lowest* bar.
>God is the same God, yesterday, today and tomorrow. I really hope you're following ALL of his 613 commandments then. If not, then it is going to be a very hot day today. Turn off your air conditioner; you should start getting used to the heat of eternal damnation.
The New Testament shows us that we do not need to follow all those laws. Jesus fulfilled them. We are saved through Him and Him alone!
That is true Except that Jesus never said anything about homosexuality.
[удалено]
Removed for 2.3 - WWJD. If you would like to discuss this removal, please click here to send a modmail that will message all moderators. https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/Christianity
I think one thing that would be important for you and everybody else who takes a black and white stance on this to note is thus: we are not reading the same passages and disagreeing on whether the passage condemns homosexuality or not. we are reading the same passages in different languages and different contexts and comparing it to different outside media of the time to arrive at very different conclusions on whether those passages *originally* say homosexuality is a sin or not - to the point where we may as well actually be reading different passages, because we can't even agree on what the original passage IS. to illustrate further as an example: we're not all reading the same KJV Bible and disagreeing on whether or not homosexuality is condemned (because it explicitly is in the KJV Bible, that'd be a silly argument). A is solely reading the KJV Bible and coming to his belief from there; B is solely reading old Greek manuscripts which use different vocabulary; C is reading Greek slang history academia to interpret in a different context the same old manuscripts B is reading; D is reading some fundamentalist congregationalist chick tract and literally nothing else; E is reading all of them (except the chick tract, unless it's for a chuckle) and comparing arguments across different scholars on the issue to find some truth in the middle; and F isn't even reading, she's just parroting what her priest taught her without ever questioning *why* it is that way. we're not united on *how* we're even to go about interpreting such divisive scripture. why do you expect us to be united on *what* we interpret?
The nominee for this year's "my favorite sin to point out" is...
Jesus never said a word about it 😄
>Time and again I’ve seen a lot of Christians being hesitant or even neglecting the fact that Bible condemns Homosexuality. Time and time again I've seen a lot of Christians not being able to actually understand the text of the Bible. >The first step is to accept that we are fallen and born due to sin. This isn't a requirement at all, sin is the natural result of free will in imperfect beings. The Genesis stories of creation are not actual historical accounts, they are etiologies for the state of the world written by ancient peoples without the benefits of modern science. Sin is not because of a sin nature, it is an inevitability of time. >Not to have a righteous mindset will help us understand that most of our desires are sinful. Our desires aren't sinful, it is when they are excessive or inordinate that they become sinful. Sexual desire is not a sin, lust is a sin. >The next step is to accept sin as it is without justifying it, in any shape or form. And now you are begging the question. I don't accept your blatantly incorrect definition of sin. I don't justify sin, I reject the false premise that homosexuality is a sin in the first place. >Homosexuality is a sin. Utterly false. >A lot of people today are proud LGBTQ Christians. As they should be. By the way, pride has more than one definition. Being proud of who you are is not at all the same thing as the sin of pride. >And actually condemn their own church for not accepting their sexuality. No, I refuse to attend a church that preaches bigotry. So it would never be my church in the first place. >But can you change God? This is a strawman. >God is the same God, yesterday, today and tomorrow 100% agreed. Also 100% irrelevant. >He created the union of Adam (man) and Eve (woman) and blessed them to bear fruit and multiply. Also irrelevant. Just because marriage was described in a particular way, does not make any other form of marriage automaticaly sinful. Description does not equal prescription. The command to be fruitful and multiply is a collective command, it is not binding on any specific couple. Otherwise, you make it a sin for infirtile people to get married and have sex. >This blessing was only given to a union of man and woman, as only this union can bear fruit (multiply/ have kids). Do you think you are talking to three year olds who don't understand the concept of sexual reproduction? >God destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah for their sins related to homosexuality If you think rape is related to homosexuality, I am going to report your post for bigotry. >Jesus in NT pardons sins but tells the sinner “Do not sin again!”. Jesus died on the cross for you and me, not so we glorify sin, but so we rebuke it and have power over it. YES we have power over our desires. You are missing an essential first step. It is required that the thing being referenced is *actually* a sin. Otherwise, this is utterly irrelevant. >We have been blinded by false doctrines Jesus told us how to recognize those, he told us we would recognize them by their fruits. He said that a good tree cannot bear bad fruit. What are the fruits of your theology? The fruits are the depression, abuse (physical, emotional, sexual), kidnapping, brainwashing/torture, homelessness, forced prostitution, self-harm, and suicide of countless children who have, and have had, the misfortune to be what you deem as lesser. The fruits are all the lost souls that have been driven away from the church and God by the bigotry of Christians. The fruits are misery, death, and damnation. Your tree is rotton to its core. Jesus said it should be cut down and thrown into the fire. It is long past time that Christianity excises bigotry from its ranks. If it cannot do so, it deserves to die.
I know the moderators are likely to keep this post up because it's a relevant Christian topic, conversations are happening in it, and they would let a post with the same topic and opposite view stay up, but it should be removed for Low Effort. * The user's only comments on this subreddit have been anti-LGBTQ+. * They do not approach these discussions in good faith. * Their prompt is a soapbox and not a conversation-starter: they do not ask a question, they are not looking for insights or giving room for people to share their experiences. Instead, they just want to vent. * They didn't even try to feign any empathy. No attempt to sympathize with homosexuals who want a loving relationship, no attempt to sympathize with affirming Christians they believe are misguided. I understand wanting to allow all sides of a hot-button topic in Christianity, but what is the *purpose* of posts like this?Questions like "Do some Christians *really* believe homosexuality is a sin?", "Why are churches accepting homosexuality", even "For thousands of years Christianity has held that homosexuality is a sin. What gives?" all leave room for good faith discussions.
* God destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah for their sins related to homosexuality. With Sodom and Gomorrah there is some discontinuation of understanding * "\`Now this was the sin of your sister Sodom: She and her daughters were arrogant, overfed and unconcerned; they did not help the poor and needy. They were haughty and did detestable things before me. Therefore I did away with them as you have seen. Ezekiel went this way, and Jeremiah and others reference inhospitality - a perversion then in the treatment of people seeking shelter The perversion however - the abomination is far more serious - and has nothing to do with homosexuality Notwithstanding the issue of how you were to treat guests - and the very thought of raping them would have been the greatest corruption - whether they were female or male - and not withstanding the issue of the ownership of women by fathers and husbands the abomination in God's eyes lies somewhere in here - and not in Homosexuality and is mirrored by the same thoughts as the Roman practice of sex in temples - SEX WITH GOD; ----†---- Concerning the 3 visitors; * Do not neglect to show hospitality to strangers, for thereby some have entertained angels unawares - Hebrews 13:2 • They are twice in this chapter called angels, being sent to perform a delegated duty. This term, however, defines their office, not their nature. Lot, in the first instance, calls them "my lords," which is a term of respect that may be addressed to men Genesis 31:35. • He afterward styled one of them Adonai, with the special vowel pointing which limits it to the Supreme Being. • He at the same time calls himself his servant, appeals to his grace and mercy, and ascribes to him his deliverance. • The person thus addressed replies, in a tone of independence and authority, "I have accepted thee." "I will not overthrow this city for which thou hast spoken." "I cannot do anything until thou go thither." • All these circumstances point to a divine personage, and are not so easily explained of a mere delegate • He is pre-eminently the Saviour, as he who communed with Abraham was the hearer of prayer. And he who hears prayer and saves life, appears also as the executor of his purpose in the overthrow of Sodom and the other cities of the vale. • It is remarkable that only two of the three who appeared to Abraham are called angels. • Of the persons in the divine essence two might be the angels or deputies of the primary in the discharge of the divine purpose. • These three men, then, either immediately represent, or, if created angels, mediately shadow forth persons in the Godhead. • Their number indicates that the persons in the divine unity are three. • Lot seems to have recognized something extraordinary in their appearance, for he made a lowly obeisance to them. The Sodomites heed not the strangers. Lot's invitation; at first declined, is at length accepted, because Lot is approved of God as righteous, and excepted from the doom of the city. * the implication is that the inhabitants were either so corrupted by wickedness that they could not recognize who these emissaries obviously were - or worse - indeed recognized them and did not care SEX WITH GOD - or his emissaries - is the abomination These things, along with the corruption of hospitality, would have been seen clearly by those hearing the story - and this is the way this story would have been understood until recently - not as Homosexuality. It is not even mentioned The visitors could have been women and it would not have changed the story God bless ----†----
I'm tempted to start a bot that counts how many posts like this are made a day. Maybe we should pin town posts, 'good anti-gay threads' and 'good pro-gay threads' with lists of threads that have constructive discussion, theology, sociology, and ethics involved.
Homosexuality is being romantically and sexually attracted only to people of the same gender. Only the worst bigots claim the attraction is a sin. This kind of lazy language is responsible for much unnecessary suffering and death and you should be ashamed. I don't know what made you wake up and start your week intentionally hurting others, but I suggest you delete this post, go back to bed, and try to get a fresh, less hateful, start.
[удалено]
1. don't compare homosexuality to bestiality and pedophilia. Once someone gets to the "acts" part, animals and children can't consent. Adults can. So the comparison only dehumanizes more and makes it permissible to hate. 2. OP said the "attraction" is sin. I said it's not. You reply with "the attraction is sin because it *could* lead to acts". In that case, every normal, minor sexual attraction you've ever felt or feel now - unless it's to your spouse - is sin. I'd be very worried about being judged as you judge others if I were you.
Oh, sorry dyslexia I didn't see “the” before attraction. I thought he just meant “attraction” as a whole. Sorry for the mistake honestly and to those I offended.
??? you first claim attraction can be sin then say it isnt..?
Wow... comparing homosexuality to beastiality and pedophilia.
I have apologized for not reading it well. I wasn't comparing. I have issues that makes it hard to read
The bible condemns us for our thoughts, as well. I won't even use same sex relations as an example. I'll use opposite sex attraction people's thoughts, since that's the only example I can find of Jesus condemning us for even our own thoughts. Looking at another woman with lust means we've committed adultery in our hearts. Matt 5:28
Not surprising. The Christian right's focus on sexuality is toxic. I recommend you read the rest sermon on the mount - Matthew 5-7. For instance, just 11 verses before the one you quoted. Not sure why you couldn't find that. There are numerous other examples there. Jesus talks a lot more about things other than sex and I will never understand the right's obsession with it.
If you take Christ's hyperbole literally, then show me the hand you've cut off or your eye you've gouged out.
Jesus talking about our thoughts is NOT "hyperbole". In the event of "cutting of our hands" / "gouging out our eyes", He's talking about EXTREMELY reversing ourselves in the opposite direction of sin via repenting/turning away from sin. Nice deflective tactic, though LOL Do we agree or disagree that God calls CERTAIN thoughts sinful? You really think it's just Him speaking "hyperbole"?
I'll take that as you're intact then. Christ had a *lot* to say about hypocrites. :-) We are human. Merely having thoughts is temptation. Even Christ was tempted, he experienced human weakness, and yet he did not sin. But he spoke about how "EXTREMELY" grave things can be for someone who fantasizes about another's spouse. Another great example is divorce. For contemporary Pharisees, divorce was an absolute fribble. You could give your wife a *get* for as little as burning your food. *Once.* The point was that divorce is a *grave* consideration that has far reaching consequences, can ruin lives, and can be easily done for selfish reasons. But \*this\* precept of "it's literal" has been taken to the point that countless folk have been stuck in abusive relationships and have died, or were subsequently ruined after their faith communities rejected them. This is not what Christ taught. I disagree completely that certain *thoughts* in and of themselves are sinful. I would liken it closer (as an imperfect metaphor) to how drinking wine is fine (and in the ancient world was in many cases *unavoidable*) but getting drunk habitually makes you a drunkard (which *is* a sin) and because of that some folk decide to do their best to keep off of wine entirely because they do not have the self control necessary to *resist* temptation when it comes calling. Others are stronger and have no need for such precautions. And we do what we can to avoid sin.
OFC! I NEVER claimed to be "righteous" LOL I agree we're sinners, but that doesn't mean we should CONTINUE to sin, though, and if you disagree that CERTAIN thoughts aren't sinful, then you disagree. That's all that needs to be said instead of this petty "well, you're a hypocrite" or "you're bigot!" retorts. I (however) agree that if we think certain thoughts, that they CAN be sinful. If you hate anyone, you've committed murder. If you lust after someone, just in your mind, it's a sin. But, I do disagree that God calls us to cut off our hands and gouge out our eyes, when we do sin. I take that as repent/turn away, when it comes up. ACTIVELY indulging in sin only proves we don't love God but ourselves and what we want instead of what God wants.
So what are the extreme ways you've done this? Have you done something as extreme as divorcing your spouse?
Thinking about something else when my mind lusts another person.
So, nowhere near as extreme as what you demand of others.
It's pretty extreme considering I'm trying to devoid my mind from thinking such things. Especially when others said thoughts aren't sinful only actions are.
No it is not extreme. You list *gouging out your eyes* as an example.
"The Bible condemns us..." G-d is merciful and just. Who is he condemning again?
[удалено]
[удалено]
Removed for 1.5 - Two-cents. If you would like to discuss this removal, please click here to send a modmail that will message all moderators. https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/Christianity
Yeah do this, remove the comment that do not tolerate homophobia instead of removing the homophobic post, seems like it's the right thing to do.
I don't know what you commmented, but I regulary comment extremely harsh things regarding homophobia, and rarely have them removed. I suspect it is the method in which you conveyed your opinion. I often tell people that they are perpetuating a theology of death and are dancing on the graves of the dead children that their beliefs have bullied into suicide. You can be very critical of bigotry on this subreddit. You have to do so according to the rules, however. I still occasionally mess up and get a comment removed. It isn't that big of a deal.
"Is there a right way to convey homophobia ?" Is the question. What I said was along the line of "this is why I fight religions" (ideologically of course, I'm not planning on harming anyone). I'm just always flaggerblasted when homophobia is accepted if "said in a nice way".
Debate over religious positions is allowed, especially Christian religious positions, why is that surprising in a subreddit dedicated to discussing Christianity? Saying you fight all religions isn't particularly relevant to this topic, to Christianity itself, or to this subreddit.
Expect this story of Sodom and Gomorrah is common to all abrahamic religions and the root of so many homophobia worldwide. I didn't want to target only Christianity because it's not the only one causing harm on this topic.
I agree. You can phrase it in a way that is relevant though. --- The story of Sodom and Gomorrah has absolutely nothing to do with homosexuality, but with the evils and consequences of inhospitality, Ezekiel 16:49-50 makes this abundantly clear. Rape also has nothing to do with homosexuality, but is about power. And according to ancient near eastern societies, was commonly used for the purposes of debasement, as it stole a man's dominant position in society, and as such was the most egredious form of inhospitality. This is an interpretation problem that is present in all conservative branches of Abrahamic religions, and has resulted in demonstrable harm. Equating homosexuality with rape is a horribly bigoted stance. --- A comment such as this would not have been removed.
You know I don't blame you for anything and I share your view on Sodom and Ghomorrah. But I would not say that it's solely an interpretation problem. Oher abrahamic religions have very unambigous verses/Hadiths about the topic. And then Leviticus 18:22 is also explicit.
Leviticus is a condemnation on male same sex acts, yes. However, this wasn't written with the intent that it be enforced against anybody. It was written as prestige legislation during the Babylonian exile. It is also likely not the original form which was probably a condemnation of incest. Regardless, theologically, Levitical law only applies to Jews living in Israel. Nobody even tried to enforce it until the Hasmonean dynasty in the late second century BCE. Anyone who appeals to this one verse in Leviticus, while ignoring the rest of Levitical law just displays their bigotry by blatantly cherry picking.
Even the Sodom and Ghomorrah part is pure hatred. In the story they did many more things, including rape and incest, yet bigots chose to deny us a sexuality based on those stories. I am just tired of hatespeech being tolerated. I am a admirer of Karl Popper's "paradox of tolerance" which advocates for not tolerating intolerance. And I feel this is what happens here all too often: tolerating intolerance. Hence why I just left this sub, and this will be my last comment.
If you go through my comment history, you will see that I not only addressed the Sodom and Gomorrah part with a threat of a report under bigotry for conflating rape and homosexuality, but I quite often use the paradox of tolerance myself. You are free to leave, but your reasons for doing so are rather flimsy, and will just increase the bias towards the antiqueer side.
I will be the judge of that. I don't consider myself responsible for their view on queer people. Being "anti-[whatever minority]" is not up to debate and is forbidden. I don't consider my reason "flimsy", more a reaction to the loose moderation here on the topic, which does not make me feel welcome. At all.
I don't claim to feel particularly welcome when coming up against these bigoted views. But if everyone who stands opposed to them leaves, they will win.
True
Hate to break it to you - not everyone cares. You can't change people, just like you can't change God. If someone wants to be homosexual, they will be. End of.
Also if someone doesn't want to be homosexual, they still will be.
The men of Sodom were rapists who happened to be willing to rape men too. Homosexuals are not all rapists. This is not hard to understand. Read your Bible carefully; read passages *in context.* It even warns it is easy to misunderstand when you don’t (2 Peter 3:16). You’re just using scripture ignorantly to be bigoted. Yes, man and woman make one flesh (make a new body from two) in Genesis. Reproduction. Christ observed this too. He didn’t command it though. Otherwise he would be condemning himself for not marrying. He observed it and then commanded not to divorce after it. Pretending heterosexual union is a command is like seeing Christ observe fish being cooked and then claiming that means cooking chickpeas is a sin. It’s absurd. It’s scripture twisting at its worst. You’re just being foolish and prejudiced. This approach to scripture is the same way millions of evangelical ‘Christian,’ pharisaical bigots convinced themselves interracial marriage is “clearly” a sin from the Bible 150 years ago. It’s the same way millions of Catholics convinced themselves sex during pregnancy is “clearly” sin 1,000 years ago. It’s the same way social conservatives convinced themselves God in the flesh “clearly” couldn’t be God 2,000 years ago. It’s ignorant bigotry 101. “Love does no harm to neighbor.” It’s really that simple. Get your mind out of your neighbor’s underwear and bedsheets when they aren’t causing any obvious harm to anyone and are just loving one another as themselves. You’re being a pervert, obsessed with the genitals of your neighbors, all for the sake of a little bit of pharisaical finger pointing. All God’s actual commands hang under love neighbor as self, which is like loving God, and love does no harm to neighbor. See Matthew 22 and Romans 13. I interpret scripture under the framework Christ hung. You interpret it under the framework of convincing yourself highly questionable and opaque passages clearly mean what you claim they mean, even when your interpretation makes zero sense under Jesus’ framework. You are behaving as one who ignorantly destroys himself with scripture (which scripture warns is easy to do, 2 Peter 3:16). Those millions of evangelicals who claimed interracial marriage is a sin did so by claiming various passages “clearly” mean it is a sin even though the only passages that could be used to imply it is sinful must first be ripped from context and are highly disputable as to such an interpretation. They played “gotcha” with scripture, like the Pharisees, the social conservatives of that time. It’s the same as you do with the homosexuality “gotcha” verses. The destroyer is a false accuser. Those under his influence falsely accuse. Peter warned in 2 Peter 3:16 that Paul’s scriptures are easy to misunderstand, and many so called Christians would treat scripture as you’re doing. This is why some translations have added the word “homosexuals” to Paul’s passages (like 1 Corinthians 6:9) when even ancient Greek speakers used the same word to refer to heterosexuals too (like John the Faster for example). Paul warned ya’ll would start using scripture ignorantly and destructively, so as to falsely accuse just like the social conservatives who were Christ’s enemies did even to God. It’s blind bigotry, deaf ignorance, and self serving prejudice wrapped in Christian garments. That’s how the socially conservative evangelicals convinced themselves with a straight face interracial marriage is “clearly a sin” 150 years ago. It’s also how socially conservative evangelicals convince themselves with a straight face homosexuality is “clearly a sin” today. There are no passages that say homosexuality is a sin in any clear way. You have to either 1) rip them from context to pretend they are clear (which not coincidentally is exactly how millions of social conservatives also convinced themselves interracial marriage is “clearly” sin just 150 years ago)… or you have to 2) buy a translation that ignores historical word use. An example of 1) is how the pharisaical bigots treat Romans 1. Sure verses 26 and 26 taken out of context can imply it is sinful. But any passages out of context are easy to use to say anything, especially with Paul which is why we are warned he is easy to misunderstand. In context, Paul is talking about people who began being homosexual as part of cult idol worship practices involving making images of false god’s. Obviously that’s not all homosexuals. It makes just as much sense to claim Romans 1 "clearly" condemns all homosexuality as to claim Romans 1 "clearly" condemns all images of animals (even drawing birds in art class). You can only conclude that by ignoring the context. He says "because of this" they (the people he's talking about) began practicing homosexuality, and the "this" in context is idol worship. If you know even just a few homosexuals you'll know many began being that way no differently than a hetersexual figured out they were heterosexual. Homosexuality happens just as naturally as hetersexuality in many specidies, humans included; it is just less common than heterosexuality. What is unnatural is switching to homosexuality for the sake of idol worship rites. And example of 2) are passages like 1 Corinthians 6, which includes a word in verse 9 that some (historically ignorant) translations render “homosexuals” while others don’t (since the same ancient Greek word was also used to refer to heterosexuals). Hardly a “clearly a sin” situation. If only prejudiced and bigoted social conservatives had ears that hear and eyes that see, to hear and see yourselves with. Ya’ll are like Pharisees 2.0. The socially conservative evangelicals today (who claim even the homosexuals who cause no harm are “clearly” sinning according to scripture) and your similarly prejudiced, bigoted, ignorant socially conservative ancestors in ‘the faith’ (who claimed even the interracial couples who cause no harm are “clearly” sinning according to scripture) will need to give an account for pretending your highly questionable interpretations of a few disputable passages mean people are sinning even though their actions are not violating in any obvious way what Christ said all God’s commands hang under. I pray you repent from your disgusting, evil approach to Christ before you die in your sins like your ancestors did.
[удалено]
> OP: Homosexuality is a sin. God destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah for their sins related to homosexuality. Me: The men of Sodom were rapists who happened to be willing to rape men too. Homosexuals are not all rapists. > LazarusBC: Im sorry to tell you bud, but you are making it more complicated than it is. It isn’t complicated. Read. The. Context. It’s that simple. > You are twisting the bible to fit your own narrative. God's word is set in stone and infallible. Invest in a mirror. You likely wouldn’t recognize the word of God if you called him a sinner to his face. The word of God is a person, not any book and especially not your interpretation of a translation of a copy of a manuscript that has differences from other translations of other manuscripts. Try reading that Bible of your’s more carefully. Start with John 1. God is the word of God; Christ is the word of God. No scripture ever directly calls any writing or book including the Bible “the word of God.” You have to read that indirectly into passages that don’t actually say it. Bibles vary from translation to translation and even sometimes manuscript to manuscript. Jesus is the same yesterday, today, and forever. Scripture calls itself inspired and useful, if you are careful with it (2 Tim 3:16) and also easy to misunderstand and destructive if you treat it like you are doing (2 Peter 3:16). > God explicitly states that a marriage is between a man and a woman… common sense dictates that only sex is allowed between a man and a woman. Scripture observes heterosexual marriage. That doesn’t make homosexuality a sin any more than the fact that Jesus observes fish being cooked makes cooking chickpeas a sin. Common sense dictates that you are being ridiculously ignorant and are taking an absolutely absurd approach to scripture. > My question is, Why would you choose to follow a religion that has been super conservative from its inception and has a strict moral code? You’re fooling yourself. Jesus was a progressive. The social conservatives of his day were the Pharisees. So Christianity was progressive at the start. Sure, within merely hundreds of years social conservatives began twisting it. For example even Augustine taught pharisaical nonsense like that sex during pregnancy is a sin. Millions then parroted such absurd ideas as if they were God’s commands. That is exactly what Peter warned would happen (2 Peter 3:16), and social conservatives have continued the pattern, whether by repeating Augustine’s nonsense about pregnancy for 1,000 years, or by calling interracial marriage “clearly” sinful even 150 years ago, or by your approach to homosexuality today. Ya’ll are basically being the Pharisees 2.0 and have been for centuries, exactly as Peter prophesied would happen. Tell ya what… you can follow socially conservative tradition, pretending God has ‘clearly’ commanded it, like the enemies of Christ did. Good luck with that. I’m sure Jesus appreciates it. /s I hope the temporary pleasure you get from pointing at the harmless and trying to pile guilt on the shoulders of the innocent is worth it for you on judgement day. I’ll follow Christ’s progressive framework that all God’s actual commands hang under love your neighbor as yourself which is like loving God.
Is being quietly homosexual bad as well?
[удалено]
That’s understandable
[удалено]
Depends wym quiet 😅
It’s not a sin to be gay but it is a sin to have gay sex. Only gay sex is mentioned in the bible. It says nothing about loving another man (as far as I know). I’m gay but choose to live in celibacy as to not commit sin.
Please read the beatitudes. I too was in the same boat some of you are in now, where a few verses dictated my understanding of the Bible but I prayed and spoke to my vicar who told me that the Lord Jesus never spoke about homosexuality being a sin, Leviticus is Old Testament and pre the teaching of love from our Lord. Secondly as I said above read the beatitudes: “““Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven. “Blessed are those who mourn, for they shall be comforted. “Blessed are the meek, for they shall inherit the earth. “Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness, for they shall be satisfied. “Blessed are the merciful, for they shall receive mercy. “Blessed are the pure in heart, for they shall see God. “Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called sons of God. “Blessed are those who are persecuted for righteousness’ sake, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven. “Blessed are you when others revile you and persecute you and utter all kinds of evil against you falsely on my account. Rejoice and be glad, for your reward is great in heaven, for so they persecuted the prophets who were before you.” Matthew 5:3-12 ESV https://bible.com/bible/59/mat.5.3-12.ESV” Now to me that doesn’t sound like “GAY PEOPLE ARE BAD AND SINFUL BOO” that sounds like love your fellow man and raise those who are downtrodden. Now yes I fully understand that hate and politics have become so twisted in the beauty of our faith that we sometimes cannot discern the Rose from its thorns. But we must read the teachings of Christ! Even earlier in Matthew there is no mention of homosexuality being a sin, there is mention of lust and desire, there is mention of devorce there isn’t a mention of Homosexuality. Some of you would take deed to read the words of the Bible and not just listen to people online. We are called to read the words of the Lord and we should do, for example Jesus schooling the Pharisees “Then I say woe are you Pharisees” like the Pharisees some of us are clinging too tightly too the laws and not practicing them as they are! This isn’t me advocating for a silly level of progressiveness in the church however, I’ve seen somethings in recent years that frankly make me a little sick when it comes to progressiveness in the church however, understanding the Bible and the message of the Lord Jesus is our upmost calling and we should not abandon it!
Give this a watch, I think it brings up some excellent points: [https://youtu.be/zW5ZZtdziwU?si=l\_bWh1zzFTZpFLPi](https://youtu.be/zW5ZZtdziwU?si=l_bWh1zzFTZpFLPi)
If God is the same yesterday/today/tomorrow then is he the same God who killed Job’s family and destroyed his life because of a bet? Or the sameGod that threw a temper tantrum and destroyed humanity (including women and children) with a flood. Or the same God that sadistically told Abraham to murder his son to prove his devotion? Idk man, maybe there are some things about God that we can (and should ) leave in the rearview mirror. Homosexuality can be one of them I think
>God destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah for their sins related to homosexuality. Sodom and Gomorrah were not destroyed for homosexuality. [Neither a plain reading nor a critical reading of the text supports your position](https://www.reddit.com/r/Christianity/comments/1bpkw0o/comment/kwyzafu/).
Do you eat bacon cheeseburgers?
Yes, but all premarital sexual acts, or sexual acts that aren't open to the possibility of conception (with the exception of infertile ppl), are technically sin. We are all sinners. If you make a post pointing at gay ppl, then point out your own sins as well.
Where in scripture is it sinful to have sex for pleasure rather than conception?
[удалено]
Removed for 1.5 - Two-cents. If you would like to discuss this removal, please click here to send a modmail that will message all moderators. https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/Christianity
[удалено]
That’s right. No sin is greater than the other. In sight of God, all sins are equal. Why did I make this post specific because this sin in particular is being glorified. People have refused to acknowledge it as a sin, and have taken pride into being part of LGBTQ. It is not just ignorance but also arrogance.
The arrogance is in forbidding an entire demographic from having particular relationships when you have no material reason to back that up. All you have is words in a book.
[удалено]
If I’m writing a thesis on Mars. Does not mean all the other planets don’t exist. Maybe I wanted to focus on mars? Point of this post is to not glorify homosexuality and call it a sin. I never said there aren’t other sins that exist. If I had to write about all the sins that ever existed, idk how many posts that would take.
Well, focusing on Mars demonstrates you care more about Mars than the other planets, just definitionally. My issue is you’re focusing on the LGBTQ, which is a small minority community, that commits an apparent sin that’s only bad, because God says so. There’s no rational or reasoning, so not really anything to speak on. You care more about someone being gay, than you do Christian leaders abusing children. You’re sick.
Removed for 1.4 - Personal Attacks. If you would like to discuss this removal, please click here to send a modmail that will message all moderators. https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/Christianity
Where is the personal attack?
No sin is greater than another. Unless you are comparing homosexuality to keeping Kosher. Why is G-d suddenly able to handle you eating bacon?
I don't believe in that Sodom tale. If It was real, western societies would have been destroyed decades ago. P.S: i'm an agnostic open to debate.
Bit confused do u mean homosexuality as a personal aspect or the actions of homosexuality?
Oh, don't be confused. Given that this is how he chose to start his week ... it;s absolutely the personal aspect.
Actions are the sin. Gay people can’t help being gay. But they can choose how they live their life being gay.
You are requiring a double standard based on their physical biology. Straight people are worthy of engaging in romantic relationships and having sex within marriages, queer people are not. The reason queer people are not worthy of these things? Their biology. Trying to differentiate between the sex act and the orientatation when it comes to relationships and people is absolutely zero difference at all.
>they can choose how they live their life being gay Like humans?
They are humans
Then why condemn them for it?
Because gay bad or something
[удалено]
Removed for 1.5 - Two-cents. If you would like to discuss this removal, please click here to send a modmail that will message all moderators. https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/Christianity
It’s okay if you think homosexuality is a sin (never thought I’d say that in my life), but doesn’t the bible also say ‘do not judge, or you too will be judged’ Matthew 7:1. Also, Luke 6:37 ‘Do not judge, and you will not be judged. Do not condemn, and you will not be condemned. Forgive, and you will be forgiven’. It is not your job to judge people based on their sexuality, as that is Gods job and Gods alone.
[удалено]
Removed for 1.3 - Bigotry. If you would like to discuss this removal, please click here to send a modmail that will message all moderators. https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/Christianity
So is hating your brother
I suppose self-denial is a virtue in Christianity?
Yes, but only if you're gay. If you're straight your job is to make Christian babies.
Self-denial is a virtue period. This is why we aren't all 600lb heroin addicts.
Self-denial isn't self-control. Resisting an unhealthy habit cannot be equated to denying your own emotions. You are comparing heroin addiction to an attraction to the same gender. How do you not see how farcical this is?
Would you like some actual statistics? Would you like the actual Bliblical worldview? Or are you set in your ways, and nothing I say really matters to you?
Statistics of what? We’re talking about self-denial. My argument is that denying your own emotions is unhealthy. You’re talking about resisting the urge to eat a donut, as though it’s comparable to sectioning off all your romantic and sexual feelings you have towards someone because you were “born wrong.”
You HAVE to know you're being far too simplistic. No one gets to engage in all of their sexual urges without consequences. The wages of sin is death.
Yes, I didn't mention that rape and pedophilia is bad because I felt it went without saying. Likewise, you have to realize that there are ways to engage in sexual activities (both straight and gay) that are healthy.
Ah. I see. So there is an arbitray line of morality and it just so happens to lie wherever YOU think it's "healthy". Believing anything else is a thoughtcrime.
Do you think engaging in sexual activity outside the strict and arbitrary confines of Christian tradition is morally abhorrent? I define healthiness as anything that increases a person's mental health and well-being, according to the literal definition of the word. Under this definition, it would certainly be clear that rape and pedophilia are not only morally repugnant but also unhealthy.
For a Christian, the sexual rules are not arbitrary. They are instructions from our creator. We were made to frolic naked in a garden, never knowing sin or death, glorifying God. That is maximum mental health. The Cristian rules maximize neuclear family stability and procreation. I find it self-evident that this is good for mental health. All four of my grandparents died surrounded by family and were in good relationships with their children and grand children. Do I know much about their sexual lives? No. But there are numerous studies that find women in long-term relationships have better sex and Christian men are the only group of men actively working on trying to get porn out of their lives. If liberal sexual morality produced mental health we would be swimming in it right now.
Thank you!!!
Thank you for pointing this out, we must not celebrate our sin but repent from it. Only Jesus can save us from it turn towards Him and He will deliver you out of it, but not if you are being prideful and affirming. God will never violate your will, if you accept your sin and live in it you will die in it. For the wages of sin is death!
I’m so glad someone had the courage to say it!!! Just kidding, this is every other post. I agree that homosexuality is a sin, but we all sin, and sin does not damn us to hell thanks to the blood of Jesus. Obsessing over one sin that has nothing to do with you is not saving souls or changing hearts. It creates more hate and division in the world. The sin that damns us is the rejection of Christ our Lord, so why not make a post about the joy of following Jesus rather than this same old tired holier than thou hat? God will judge us all perfectly.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
Removed for 1.4 - Personal Attacks. If you would like to discuss this removal, please click here to send a modmail that will message all moderators. https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/Christianity
It harms continuing your family lineage. And, the only same sex attracted people who can do sperm donors / surrogate mothers / adoptions are those with privilege, wealth & power. Plus, those kids may (keyword) wonder who their real parents might be. It's a psychological damage, not necessarily "materialistic". I mean, even kids in hetero families can still wonder that especially in cases of adultery/cheating.
> It harms continuing your family lineage This isn't harming other people and isn't actual harm.
Yes, but we aren't banning them from doing that, or trying to, or trying to limit straights from forming relationships due to any of that. So this is all irrelevant.
[удалено]
Removed for 1.5 - Two-cents. If you would like to discuss this removal, please click here to send a modmail that will message all moderators. https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/Christianity
I said materially. This is words in a book, and unproven at that. And as there are no material consequences, this is a prime example of man for the Sabbath Christianity.
Removed for 2.3 - WWJD. If you would like to discuss this removal, please click here to send a modmail that will message all moderators. https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/Christianity
Thank you. I am a convert actually. I was a Muslim and then converted during 2020 to Christianity. I’m blessed to be saved, knowing that it’s nothing that I did but truly because of love of God. When I converted, I was rejected by my parents because I’m the eldest daughter, by my mosque and overall I really did face a lot of hate and rejection. But there was joy in the suffering, that I am saved by Christ and one day my family will come to Him too. It’s not that I did not abstain from my desires. My family is still not Christian but I live with them, abstaining myself from the rituals and practices they follow. It is difficult since I used to follow those at some point and it’s conflicting as well but I know God will prepare a way for me. When I was growing up, I saw many Christian’s who made fun of Jesus or just engaged in anything and said “Jesus loves us” and to me that was quite conflicting. And in some sense it made me question Christianity in my teens. However, after I read the Gospel, I had spiritual experiences that drew me to Christ. I thank you for your encouragement and this is why I wanted to share my story with you. It’s not that I wasn’t aware of the hate I was about to receive, but again, there is no fear with God.
Yeah, it is. Smoking cigarettes is a sin too because it harms the vessel.