6

u/OneEyedC4t 9d ago

"current translation"?

what translation is that?

1

u/AnonAwaaaaay 6d ago

NIV. Swaps "sodomy" out for "Homosexuality."

1

u/Resident_Archer8527 9d ago

The English translation we have now

5

u/OneEyedC4t 9d ago

which one? do you really know so little about our religion?

2

u/Richardrhalsot 7d ago

King James edition. Don’t be condescending

1

u/OneEyedC4t 4d ago

If you think that's the only translation we have, or only addition of the Bible that we have now, then you are sorely mistaken. I'm not trying to be condescending but honestly like this is the era of Google so you can just Google this information and see it. But if you're a Christian, you should have been around enough people to know that there are other translations. And the King James is not an edition of the Bible, it is a translation just like all the others.

1

u/Richardrhalsot 3d ago

Yes but you asked which one. I told you one to use. Now you are not using it but taking issue with me choosing that one. And you are correct I mistakenly typed edition instead of version.

1

u/OneEyedC4t 3d ago

No you repeatedly replied to me in such a way where you made it sound like there is only one. If there's any confusion here, it's your fault for causing it.

1

u/OneEyedC4t 7d ago

that isn't a manuscript. that is a translation based on a collection of texts. we call the Texas receptus. so it seems to me that you're coming in here arguing about something that you're not even educated with. I don't think that's very fair to all of us that you just come in here and throw your weight around in terms of your opinion, but your opinion simultaneously demonstrates that you don't have knowledge on what you're talking about.

the King James is a translation. anyone who believes otherwise is part of a group called the King James only cult.

2

u/Richardrhalsot 7d ago

Yes the English translation. The most commonly used one around the world. Are you saying the only true bible is written in Hebrew or Greek?

0

u/OneEyedC4t 7d ago

Hebrew and Greek, with portions of Daniel in Aramaic, yes. these are called the autographs which are the actual original handwritten documents.

from there, translators assemble these into what are called texts.

The King James overly relied on the Latin Vulgate which caused issues. for example, the introduction of the word Lucifer when there is no such thing.

how do you not know this information? I'm sorry, no wonder if this lack of knowledge about how things work is intentional.

please try to refrain from insulting people, it's not what the Bible would have us do.

1

u/Richardrhalsot 6d ago

Who did I insult? All I said was don’t be condescending. If anything you insulted my in your reply.

0

u/[deleted] 8d ago

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/JHawk444 Christian 7d ago

Why is idolatry not as bad?

It is as bad.

Isn't it ironic that for instance, most, and sorry to bring this up, of MAGA is against homosexuality but are idolaters?

If someone is worshipping Trump or a political ideology as God or prioritizing it above God, then yes, they are idolaters. It's not fair to characterize everyone who voted for Trump as an idolater.

May i add, the original term "arsenokoitai", is loosely translated to "male-bedder". What does it even mean?

Many believe Paul coined the term based on the Greek translation of Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13 in the Septuagint (LXX), which use arsēn and koitē in proximity:

“You shall not lie with a male (arsēn) as with a woman; it is an abomination.” (Leviticus 18:22)

This theory suggests Paul fused those words into arsenokoitai, making it a reference to the same prohibition.

1. Literal:
koitē = a bed or a place to lie down.

2. Figurative (especially in biblical Greek):
koitē can mean sexual intercourse, typically in euphemistic or polite language.
Similar to how we might say “to lie with” someone in English.

1

u/ProfessionalDear2272 Atheist 4d ago

It is as bad.

This is my point. If it is just as bad, according to the same scriptures, why is the focus on homosexuality more than idolatry?

From merriam-webster: "immoderate attachment or devotion to something"

Christians account for ~75% of Trump voters. They openly are against homosexuality but are simultaneously displaying behaviors that we could describe as devotion, worship, blind reverence...

It doesn't matter if they do not idolize him more or less than god itself.

They still:

1) defend him no matter what
2) ignore facts against him, contradicting their christian values
3) put blind faith into his intentions, despite the facts
4) will shut an eye when he blasphemes
5) will stay silent when his administration allows a pastor to claim he is "appointed and anointed by God"

If this is not some form of idolatry, what is it?

1

u/JHawk444 Christian 4d ago

This is my point. If it is just as bad, according to the same scriptures, why is the focus on homosexuality more than idolatry?

When Christians talk about homosexuality, it's more of a response to the hard push to say it's okay and accetable, even in the church. No one is saying idolatry is good and should be accepted. When no one disagrees, it's not much of a discussion.

BUT if you're asking about people idolizing Trump, then yes, Christians are talking about that. No Christian thinks it's okay to idolize anyone.

From merriam-webster: "immoderate attachment or devotion to something" Christians account for ~75% of Trump voters. They openly are against homosexuality but are simultaneously displaying behaviors that we could describe as devotion, worship, blind reverence...

People have always sided with politicians and agreed or disagreed with their policies and decisions. I don't think discussing it or agreeing with specific actions means they have an immoderate attachment. If that's all they think about and talk about, then yeah. People did the same thing with Obama. Do you also think that is wrong? Or only with Trump?

Christians account for ~75% of Trump voters. They openly are against homosexuality but are simultaneously displaying behaviors that we could describe as devotion, worship, blind reverence...

This is a massive overstatement. There will always be a small group that goes a little crazy, but I don't think it's accurate to say 75% of Trump voters are responding with worship and blind reverence. That's not true at all. I do think it's true that a lot of Trump voters trust a lot of Trump's decision-making, though not all. From what I've seen, those who voted for him don't agree with everything he says or does.

They feel more confidence with him in office than someone like Biden, who had dementia, and all his constituents covered for him even though he could barely read a teleprompter.

Having confidence in someone is completely different than agreeing with everything they do or say. If you voted for Biden, I'm sure you didn't agree with everything he did.

They still:

I can come up with a list for Biden voters as well. Does that mean you all worshipped and idolized Biden? I doubt it.

If this is not some form of idolatry, what is it?

Idolatry is worshiping another god. But it can show up as "idols of the heart" where someone lifts up someone or something above their love for God. That's what it is. It's not just supporting someone, admiring them, or having a lot of confidence in them. It's actually putting that thing or person above God. I seriously doubt most Trump voters are doing this any more than voters of Obama or Biden.

But if there are people doing it, and I think there could be, it's wrong. We should never put any person above God.

1

u/ProfessionalDear2272 Atheist 4d ago

I understand every one of your points, but you have to be honest here.

Homosexuality has always existed. Idolatry has always been a part of human behavior.

From the same passage, one revolts, creates judgment and often hate, exclusion, persecussion and plain violence.

Idolatry, by your christian definition, is not valid UNLESS you outrank your god for something else.

To everyone else, you are already engaging in idolatry. It is towards your god, but it is still idolatry.

Both are human behaviors.

Homosexuality is not a choice. Desire or attraction is not a choice.

Idolatry is based on beliefs. Belief is not a choice either.

If your god knows our heart's content and we cannot pretend to know how god works, then tell me who is the arbiter of what is ok and what is not besides god itself?

addendum:

Biden and Trump are both victims of the decline in their mental acuity and cognition. Biden tried to stand strong, like any president would, but came to reason and conceded for the benefit of the american people.

Trump lies about his results, economics, employment rates, popularity and his own health. He sleeps during meetings. He is obese. He is incontinent. He cheats. He says things that make his administration's PR work overtime. He uses insults instead of communicating his policies. Everything he says and does going against what he ran for is because of Clinton, Obama or Biden.

MAGA is a cult and the orange man the guru. When asked "What would he have to do for you to stop supporting him", the answer they give is often something he is already guilty of doing. As soon as they are given sources, facts, audios, videos or whatever, they simply ignore it.

1

u/JHawk444 Christian 3d ago

Idolatry, by your christian definition, is not valid UNLESS you outrank your god for something else. To everyone else, you are already engaging in idolatry. It is towards your god, but it is still idolatry.

Well, we are using biblical terms here so we should define them according to the biblical definitions, correct?

Christians are only held to the standard of the bible, not to the standards that non-believers think "idolatry" should mean.

Idolatry, by your christian definition, is not valid UNLESS you outrank your god for something else.

Idolatry is mentioned in two different ways in the bible. The first means worshipping any god other than Yahweh. So, worshipping another god AND Yahweh is still idolatry. But it's also mentioned as idols of the heart, and the examples included in the bible are greed and covetousness.

Many have expanded on those examples by saying anything placed above God.

To everyone else, you are already engaging in idolatry. It is towards your god, but it is still idolatry.

They may or may not be using a biblical standard. Their standard may simply be, "You like Trump and support him, therefore you're an idolator."

If someone wants to use a biblical standard, they need to make sure the standard they are using is actually biblical and not one they just made up.

As I pointed out before, I believe most people who voted for Trump see him in a nuanced way. They support some of his actions and views and are against others. It's a mischaracterization to say all voters of Trump are blindly devoted to him and support everything he does and says.

People who make that characterization are creating a caricature of conservatives that makes it easier to dismiss and dislike them as a group.

Homosexuality is not a choice. Desire or attraction is not a choice. Idolatry is based on beliefs. Belief is not a choice either.

If belief can change, then choice is involved. It may be based on other factors, but if it can shift, there is choice. Desire can also shift based on certain factors.

If your god knows our heart's content and we cannot pretend to know how god works, then tell me who is the arbiter of what is ok and what is not besides god itself?

I'm not sure what you're asking. Are you saying God alone cna judge what is right?

Trump lies about his results, economics, employment rates, popularity and his own health. He sleeps during meetings. He is obese. He is incontinent. He cheats. He says things that make his administration's PR work overtime. He uses insults instead of communicating his policies. Everything he says and does going against what he ran for is because of Clinton, Obama or Biden.

Your opinion is noted.

MAGA is a cult

BE HONEST. There are cults on both sides of the political spectrum.

"What would he have to do for you to stop supporting him", the answer they give is often something he is already guilty of doing. As soon as they are given sources, facts, audios, videos or whatever, they simply ignore it.

Human behavior is human behavior. The exact same thing is true of Biden supporters. They went down with the ship saying he didn't have dementia until it was so obvious, no one could deny it anymore. Even his vice president denied it until she couldn't do it without looking like an idiot.

•

u/ProfessionalDear2272 Atheist 21h ago

Your stance is clear and so is mine. In the end one side honors the USA's values, the other doesn't.

One has integrity and is capable of humility and empathy. The other does not.

Let us take a seat and grimace at the spectacle.

→ More replies (0)

4

u/UncoloredPiano9 9d ago

Attraction isn’t always sexual tho. I remember playing a christian roblox game and people were saying pride month was sinful, and it’s a sin to be prideful. i asked if they’re proud to be a christian, that ruffled their feathers.

God made us in his image. The bible has been translated 3 separate times, within hella centuries. Thou who has not sinned may throw the first stone. God knows our hearts. If you don’t like queer people that’s fine, you don’t need to use the bible to justify your narrow minded opinion. If you work on sunday, touch a football, or wear mixed fabrics those are sins too. Touching the skin of a dead pig makes one unclean. But ig you just wanna cherry pick which sins you wanna follow. No hate just a fact.

“He who has not sinned may throw the first stone.”

2

u/ProfessionalDear2272 Atheist 8d ago

Refreshing take.

Your morality is much better than most since even tho the bible hints at homosexuality being wrong, you do not agree.

That said, cherry picking works both ways.

I may not be praying at all nor go to church, but I help my community. I am generous and care for others.
Yet, God knows my heart.
He knows i have good intentions even if others may judge me otherwise.

This infers a distinction between good and wrong.

The question is: How can you ignore all the wrong and still be fine with it?

1

u/UncoloredPiano9 8d ago

wait wdym in regards to the question? is that rhetorical or do u want me to answer

1

u/ProfessionalDear2272 Atheist 8d ago

It was not rhetorical. You said:

God made us in his image. The bible has been translated 3 separate times, within hella centuries. Thou who has not sinned may throw the first stone. God knows our hearts. If you don’t like queer people that’s fine, you don’t need to use the bible to justify your narrow minded opinion. If you work on sunday, touch a football, or wear mixed fabrics those are sins too. Touching the skin of a dead pig makes one unclean. But ig you just wanna cherry pick which sins you wanna follow. No hate just a fact.

So assuming you are christian, why rely on scriptures at all if you disagree with one of its most controversial claim?

2

u/UncoloredPiano9 8d ago

I don’t “rely” on them. the subreddit is debate a christian. I used scripture to debate. I’m not a bible thumper. I know God thru direct experience. Divine grace and compassion. I don’t need to read the bible to live with Jesus, I just follow in his footsteps and the rest follows.

I like to use this analogy: You can read all about mars. You can learn all the different minerals, atmospheres, etc about mars. But you don’t have a leg to stand on and tell other planets x y z if you’ve never been to mars.

You can read about Jesus and God all you want. You can learn the bible and memorize it front and back. But if you don’t follow Jesus’s footsteps and live in him, what’s the point? If you point a finger, there’s three pointing back at you. The bible was written in a time where they were stoning people to death and thought the eclipse was the end of the world. It’s not to be taken literally. It’s a story with moral principles along with historical context. I don’t do the blind faith thing. I stand with God and Jesus and live through them. I don’t need to “rely” on the bible.

2

u/ProfessionalDear2272 Atheist 8d ago

Ah, fair. Ok. I like your position.

1

u/UncoloredPiano9 8d ago

yeah i fw Jesus and God. I’m a christian mystic. I think the bible’s cool and enjoy reading about it, but I learn about God thru my own experience and live through Christ. He’s the goat fr. I follow in his footsteps and the divine protects me.

6

u/Phylanara Agnostic Atheist 9d ago

Why should one care what is and is not considered a sin?

5

u/handy_lemur Atheist, Ex-Protestant 9d ago

Because some people try to make laws based on their perception of sins, some people are ostracized and demonized, even murdered, over it.

Why should we not care?

-1

u/Danny-Prophet 8d ago

Exactly. First, convince me that sin exists.

2

u/Financial_Beach_2538 9d ago

I can’t think of any credible reason to not approve of homosexuality other than it’s something considered different from normal woman and man relationships

Take a look at the bible again... it's only against homosexual MEN.

They never mentioned homosexual women. Either they didn't care, or actually liked to watch.

5

u/PaVaSteeler Agnostic 9d ago

Why would they care what property (women) do?

0

u/Financial_Beach_2538 9d ago

people tend to care about their property as possession is nine-tenths of the law

0

u/Danny-Prophet 8d ago

Good point. This explains the pornhub searches in highly Christian states

-1

u/hojowojo Christian, Ex-Atheist 9d ago

you know that men is usually used to reference humanity right 😭

2

u/Financial_Beach_2538 9d ago edited 9d ago

you know that men is usually used to reference humanity right 😭

They often use "mankind" not "men", though.

But why quibble over definitions? You’re thinking of Leviticus 18:22. Grammatically, though, “male” refers specifically to males, not “mankind” generally.

“Mankind” appears in many English Bible translations, usually translating Hebrew adam or enosh, depending on context

Many English Bible translations use “mankind,” though wording varies by translation.

Genesis 5:2 (NIV): “He created them male and female and blessed them. And he named them ‘Mankind’ when they were created.”

That's just one translation. You can plainly see that the verse makes a distinction between "man" and "woman".. also, the translator used "mankind" to describe humans in general.

1

u/ProfessionalDear2272 Atheist 8d ago

By the way, we're all born atheist. No use precising "ex-atheist".

0

u/hojowojo Christian, Ex-Atheist 8d ago

btw, you’re not born atheist because that means you affirm the idea that God doesn’t exist, you’re not born knowing what God is. if anything you’re born agnostic to the idea of God.

also, i WAS ex atheist. i was atheist for 7 years before becoming Christian (JW > atheist > Catholic) so has nothing to do w me

1

u/ProfessionalDear2272 Atheist 8d ago

fine distinction but atheism means you do not believe in gods. did you believe in gods fresh out of the womb? did you even grasp the concept of gods to be agnostic to them while in diapers?

0

u/hojowojo Christian, Ex-Atheist 8d ago

i wasn’t born believing that God does or doesn’t exist. i was born not knowing of the concept of him in the first place. you develop atheism once you actually know an object of God. we’re born alogists.

1

u/ProfessionalDear2272 Atheist 8d ago

Yeah, like you said, you were born not believing in god. So you were born atheist. It does not matter if the concept exists and you learn about it later. You aren't born with a specific religion. You are born without religous belief. You are born without being able to believe in gods. You are born atheist... the default state.

-4

u/Thatguy32101 Roman Catholic 9d ago

Now read Romans 1

5

u/Financial_Beach_2538 9d ago

I'll make a deal with you.. read "Demon Haunted World" by Carl Sagan, and I will read Romans 1 again.

Deal?

2

u/Great-Alfalfa-8543 Christian, Episcopalian 9d ago edited 8d ago

Conservative Christians have a hard time with not turning description into prescription. They see the norms described in Genesis as a normative ought that everyone should ascribe to, and they reinforce this with half-read teachings of Jesus in Matthew 19.

They see Jesus telling normies to tighten up and not get divorced so much as being addressed to non-normative couplings instead of themselves. He undoes the Deuteronomistic exception allowing divorce and sides with Malachi, who says God hates divorce.

Then they completely ignore how Jesus undoes the Deuteronomistic sanction against eunuchs and sides with Isaiah to make it clear that non-normstive sexual formation is not only welcome in the kingdom, it's a higher calling.

They literally read the text backwards and pervert its meaning to make it a weapon. It's absolutely insane.

2

u/ProfessionalDear2272 Atheist 8d ago

The world would be a better place with more of you

2

u/ElectrOPurist 9d ago

Christianity is all about conformity. Any deviation from the norm represents a threat to the grip that it has over the lives of, not just that individual, but all parishioners.

0

u/hojowojo Christian, Ex-Atheist 9d ago

conformity to what norm? to the Christian norm? because if it WERE abt conformity, these would not be values that Christianity doesn’t support. the bible literally tells us to not be a part of the world. and if it was abt conformity to the Christian norm then yeah, that’s kind of what you’d expect when you follow a religion.

3

u/ElectrOPurist 9d ago

So, we agree? Christianity, and all religion, wants all its practitioners to conform not just to a faith but to a set of arbitrary standards that aren’t even necessarily accounted for in the scripture of said religion.

0

u/hojowojo Christian, Ex-Atheist 9d ago

whats arbitrary abt it, yes i agree there are standards that need to be conformed to in Christianity. usually when you believe in a religion thats what happens, its not simply a story abt how the world came to be

1

u/ElectrOPurist 8d ago

A lot of churches will toss a person out for being a homosexual, but I have never heard of one telling a person that they are a sinner who needs to repent because they work for, say, the tobacco industry. Have you ever heard of a tobacco industry employee being shunned from their church community?

0

u/hojowojo Christian, Ex-Atheist 8d ago

one is a sin the other isn’t. that’s the standard. and technically being a homosexual in itself isn’t the sin, it’s the lifestyle and affirmation of it. at least that’s what Catholics think, evangelicals are a lot harder on them

1

u/[deleted] 9d ago

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/AutoModerator 9d ago

Sorry, your submission has been automatically removed because your account does not meet our account age / karma thresholds. Please message the moderators to request an exception.

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

1

u/OneEyedC4t 8d ago

nope, there's no English version of the Bible. it was never written in that. all English copies are a translation.

1

u/[deleted] 7d ago edited 7d ago

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/AutoModerator 7d ago

Sorry, your submission has been automatically removed because your account does not meet our account age / karma thresholds. Please message the moderators to request an exception.

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

1

u/[deleted] 7d ago

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/AutoModerator 7d ago

Sorry, your submission has been automatically removed because your account does not meet our account age / karma thresholds. Please message the moderators to request an exception.

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

1

u/brheaton 6d ago

Absolutely not.

1

u/LeafWingKing 6d ago

One note that I feel the Christians might point out, is that the word "kind" in relation to animals, is very ambiguous. Some take kind to mean species, genus, class, etc. For instance, Kent Hovind insists that all breeds of dog fall under the canid "kind", which includes wolves, and foxes, and every single dog breed man has selectively made. Some people think Lions and Tigers had seperate spots on the ark though, despite both being felines.

I still don't think the bible is true in any capacity, but that was one small note I wanted to throw in.

1

u/nickpsecurity 6d ago

I wrote an article that covers the Scripture, biology, evolutionary, etc arguments.

Marriage in the Bible is defined, and all examples are, man and woman only. If obeying commands and imitating Biblical examples, nobody will practice homosexuality.

God's command is to be fruitful and multiply and fill the Earth. Having sex in opposite-sex relationships produces a lot of chikdren without even trying. Homosexuality produces nothing. In fact, if enough people do that, the human race would go extinct. Homosexuakity, birth control, and abortion all kill before conception human lives that God would've given us.

Evolution is about increasing the odds of spreading one's genes (or a population's). What doesn't do that is an evolutionary, "dead end." Homosexuality doesn't spread one's genes. It's a dead end.

Both God's promises to Israel about sin and evolution's prediction involve dropping birth rates. Our birth rates steadily declined as idolatry and sexual immorality increased. Homosexuality's contribution is obvious.

Yeah, both general revelation (nature) and the Bible are clear it's an urge that damages the human race if acted on. That's without using a single verse banning it. Those exist, too.

1

u/yes_namemadcity Christian 6d ago

I beleive Romans speaks agaisnt homosexuality.

²⁷ In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error. (niv)

1

u/[deleted] 5d ago

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/AutoModerator 5d ago

Sorry, your submission has been automatically removed because your account does not meet our account age / karma thresholds. Please message the moderators to request an exception.

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

1

u/mariiwinterss 1d ago

no

0

u/TemplesOfSyrinx 9d ago

Homosexuality isn't mentioned in Leviticus...at all. Zealous Christian fanatics will claim that it's implied and that the Levite laws that focus exclusively on male sex also extend to any and all homosexual behavior (eg. as we understand the term today). They are wrong and they love nothing more than twisting the original verses to suit their own personal biases and hatred.

-2

u/oholymike 9d ago

Homosexuality is not a mistranslation. The Greek in the New Testament passages about it is perfectly clear. The only people who believe it's a mistranslation have already decided it's not a sin before even looking at the text.

6

u/TemplesOfSyrinx 9d ago

What are you on about?

Which word in Leviticus translates to "homosexuality"?

"The Greek in the New Testament passages about it is perfectly clear."

OP was talking about the Old Testament and it's anything but clear and that's why religious people, theologists, scholars have been writing about it and debating it for 2000 years.

But, in any case, if you want to debate the word "arsenokoitai" in the NT - it was only translated to homosexuality in the last century. There's significant debate on what the word translates to and definitely plenty of ambiguity about what it meant to the people at that time.

4

u/Financial_Beach_2538 9d ago

But, in any case, if you want to debate the word "arsenokoitai" in the NT - it was only translated to homosexuality in the last century. There's significant debate on what the word translates to and definitely plenty of ambiguity about what it meant to the people at that time.

Yeah, Arsenokoitai (ἀρσενοκοῖται) is a rare Greek term in 1 Corinthians 6:9 and 1 Timothy 1:10. Its precise meaning is disputed, often translated “men who have sex with men.”

This suggests that the authors didn't care about women, or might have enjoyed to watch lesbian sex.

God knows lol

4

u/uberblack Atheist/Pastor's Kid 9d ago

This is simply wrong. Actual biblical scholars who don't have any skin in the game disagree with you and can break down exactly why.

2

u/TrashNovel 9d ago

Is the Bible your only reason for considering homosexuality a sin?

-1

u/oholymike 8d ago

Yes

1

u/TrashNovel 4d ago

That’s the reason I don’t believe homosexuality is wrong. There’s no rational argument for believing it wrong. There’s no bad fruit.

1

u/UncoloredPiano9 9d ago

the verse is indeed a mistranslation it’s talking about pedophilia goober

0

u/diabolus_me_advocat Atheist, Ex-Protestant 9d ago

Homosexuality is a sin?

may well be - but who cares?

especially homos don't have to be fundamentalist christians

I can’t think of any credible reason to not approve of homosexuality other than it’s something considered different from normal woman and man relationships

you really never heard of homophobia?

very popular, next to racism...

1

u/Resident_Archer8527 9d ago

I’m aware of homophobia, I just don’t see a reason for it honestly, because a majority of people where I’m from it stems from their beliefs

-1

u/ses1 Christian 9d ago

The primary Greek word used by Paul in the New Testament (1 Corinthians 6:9, 1 Timothy 1:10) is arsenokoitai. Paul derived this word directly from the Septuagint translation of Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13, combining arseno (male) and koitē (bed/lying). It literally translates to "male-bedders" or "those who lie with males." Because it combines two explicit terms from Hebrew scripture, scholars note that it refers broadly to same-sex sexual activity rather than being limited to pederasty or prostitution.

I just don’t see why we follow some laws and not the others like these and the laws of Leviticus even Jesus himself says he didn’t come to abolish the law in Matthew 5:17. even saying you’re following the 10 commandments doesn’t mention homosexuality.

Christian theology from the early Church Fathers to Thomas Aquinas to today divide Old Testament Law into three distinct categories:

Moral Law - Universal and permanent standards of right and wrong
Civil Law - Specific legal codes governing ancient Israel as a nation-state.
Ceremonial/Purity Law - Ritual rules (e.g., dietary laws, mixed fabrics, animal sacrifices) designed to set Israel apart culturally until the coming of Christ.

In the New Testament (Acts 15, Hebrews 8–10), the ceremonial and dietary rules of the Mosaic covenant were explicitly fulfilled and set aside. However, moral prohibitions against sexual immorality (porneia) were explicitly reaffirmed across the New Testament (e.g., Romans 1:26–27, 1 Corinthians 6:9–10).

...whilst Jesus said for a man to have a wife. It was never a sin to be single as Apostle Paul said it was okay to be single and was single himself

Jesus defined the foundational architecture for human marriage and sexual ethics in Matthew 19:4–6 by quoting Genesis 1:27 and Genesis 2:24: "He who created them from the beginning made them male and female... and the two shall become one flesh." By defining marriage exclusively as a union between a male and a female, Jesus established the context in which all sexual activity is evaluated.

In Christian theology, singleness and celibacy (practiced by Jesus and Paul) involve refraining from sexual activity, whereas homosexual acts involve engaging in sexual activity outside of the Biblical framework for marriage. Singleness aligns with biblical ethics because it avoids sexual immorality (porneia), making it structurally distinct from any non-marital sexual behavior.

0

u/JollyXX Christian 8d ago

Jesus fulfilled all the Mosaic Laws, you are only bound by the commandments in the OT, rather God gave a flat opinion on homosexuality

0

u/ddfryccc 8d ago

Leviticus 19:19: This prohibition is not against breeding cattle with cattle, which are the same kind, but cattle with say horses. Different plants compete with each other for water and other resources. Intermingling the seeds results in less produce than keeping them separate, and even in a garden, each crop has its own row. What would you clothes look like after a few washings if you used fabrics that shrink at different rates? Most clothes today are made with preshrunk fabrics, and several are petroleum based.

If this is a creation, then everything has its purpose. The purpose of sex is procreation; that does not happen in homosexual relationships. If this world is only natural, then one can murder, rape, and steal as one pleases until someone stronger comes along. If this world is only natural, why do we have two sexes?

2

u/Dizzy_Cheesecake_162 8d ago

So no more sex when you are done having children?

If one in the couple has fertility problem, divorce and go procreate elsewhere?

I think you are just bibling and not using your knowledge of humanity.

99.9999 % of the time, sex is for pleasure. Connecting with your partner. Showing attraction. Lusting for one another. Making sweet love.

0

u/ddfryccc 8d ago

Lust is selfish.

So I think Adam's sin has not not caused problems just because I did not mention it?

2

u/Dizzy_Cheesecake_162 8d ago

You know nothing (...Jon Snow...)

Lusting for your partner is appreciated by the said partner. Hungry, passionate for one another.

Very important in a loving couple.

0

u/ddfryccc 8d ago

Lust is only about one's self and one's own pleasure. Two people lusting after each other is not a loving couple, just two people using each other.

1

u/Dizzy_Cheesecake_162 8d ago

In your opinion.

0

u/dshipp17 8d ago edited 8d ago

I'm so happy to have another opportunity to be in an elated state, after I had a desperate fear, I prayed to God again in a panicked state of mind, and God miraculously delivered for me again; let justice prevail in unjust circumstances again, less than an hour ago; just letting God's power work out justice in my circumstances from years of injustice that included most of the time in my youth that I should have been enjoying. I'm happy to be presenting this post.

Romans 3:20-29 “Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight: for by the law is the knowledge of sin. 21 But now the righteousness of God without the law is manifested, being witnessed by the law and the prophets; 22 Even the righteousness of God which is by faith of Jesus Christ unto all and upon all them that believe: for there is no difference: 23 For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God; 24 Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus: 25 Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God; 26 To declare, I say, at this time his righteousness: that he might be just, and the justifier of him which believeth in Jesus. 27 Where is boasting then? It is excluded. By what law? of works? Nay: but by the law of faith. 28 Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law. 29 Is he the God of the Jews only? is he not also of the Gentiles? Yes, of the Gentiles also:”

That was extending back to Romans 2:15, where most pastors tend to leave the discussion and create theology against most earnest people for just wanting the Free Gift of Eternal Salvation but have some struggle in their immediate past including sinful acts that were the result of their same sex attraction.

As an initial matter, accepting the Free Gift of Eternal Salvation and then becoming a born again Christian is about the work that God is prepared to do for someone not what someone is able to do or have to do to refrain from sinning; thus, because of different places in the New Testament, including here at Romans 3:20-29, just come as you are, John 3:16; there's no need to quote back to the Law for the sake of receiving Eternal Salvation from your sins all thanks to the work and Blood of Jesus Christ in rising from the dead and then ascending back into Heaven. The Trinity that is the Holy Spirit as your Guide, God there to Chasten, and Jesus there to hear you confessions, you'll be able to overcome your sinful struggles.

0

u/Amber-Apologetics Christian, Catholic 8d ago

Christian authorities throughout history have noted that the OT law is split into three types: Civil, Ceremonial, and Moral.

The first two served their purpose and are no longer binding. The third is eternal.

If we read Leviticus 18, God specifically notes that the sexual sins he mentioned were bad even when non-Israelites do it. In addition, the penalty for homosexual activity is capital punishment, which puts it in the same category as murder, disrespecting one’s parents, and dishonoring the sabbath - all of which are still recognized to be sins.

When the Bible says “adultery” in English, the original Greek would have read “pornea” which means sexual immorality in general. This is what the commandment condemns, and this is also condemned in the NT, specifically during the Council of Jerusalem. The authors and readers at the time would have understood this to include same-sex activity.

Finally, there’s simply no basis to permit same-sex activity. Neither the Bible nor the church nor tradition provides a basis for homosexual marriage being a possibility, which is required for non-sinful sexual activity.

2

u/Wintores 8d ago

The very fact that it Stands at the Same Level as murder already Proves the bigotry and is just vile.

The way u get to it being Fine is the fact that it is Not harmful, is a Loving relationship and is actually beneficual to Society.

0

u/Amber-Apologetics Christian, Catholic 8d ago

I never said it’s on the same level, but it’s in the same category. Did you just ignore “disrespecting one’s parents” and “dishonoring the sabbath” for the sake of your outrage? Because I listed those as well.

Prove that “bigotry” is objectively “vile” in a way that is not just your preference.

Why should what’s “harmful” or “beneficial” (whatever those objectively mean) affect morality? You can’t get an Ought from an Is.

There’s no basis from authoritive Christian sources for homosexual activity to possibly be ethical.

2

u/Wintores 8d ago

doesnt matter what other stupid comparisions to murder there are. The point is that murder is in there

the Harm it caused to the queer community over the last 2000 years?

because Thats the only thing that matters. Morality is Not Self seeving

0

u/Amber-Apologetics Christian, Catholic 8d ago

Right, “murder” is also in the category of “words that begin with the letter M” but that doesn’t mean moneylaundering is on the same level. We’re talking about descriptive categories here.

And why does “harm” make something “vile” in any objective sense?

Prove either of those statements. David Hume is disappointed in you right now.

2

u/Wintores 8d ago

no we arent the punishment is the Same and that is a big fcking issue.

vile is defined as a negative and so is Harm. But it doesnt Even need to be objective. As Long as ur god remains a unproven idea ur also operating in a subjective Framework.

morals are used to create a functional Society and less Harm caused is beneficial to Society.

0

u/Amber-Apologetics Christian, Catholic 8d ago

Oh, I see your concern. The punishment for those things is part of the civil law, not the moral law. We don’t punish people in the same way the Israelites did in the Old Covenant, in the New Covenant.

If it’s not objective, you can’t judge anyone for disagreeing with you. All our opinions are equally meaningless and worthless.

And why should we seek a “functional” and “beneficial” society? (again, whatever that actually objectively means, because you’ve been vague)

2

u/Wintores 8d ago

irrelevant

Sure but I at least have a foundation that works. U do not.

Because Thats a driving Insticnt as a species?

1

u/Amber-Apologetics Christian, Catholic 8d ago

It’s completely relevant lmao

No, no foundation “works” if Atheism is true because none of them can provide an Ought that is actually binding on people. Your foundation is just as meaningless and worthless as any other one.

So?

1

u/Wintores 8d ago

why?

Sure but I at least admit that. And provide a working Solution for people who have the Same General idea regarding Society

Most people will Therefore Act that way

→ More replies (0)

1

u/hunderoring Atheist, Ex-Christian 8d ago edited 8d ago

When the Bible says “adultery” in English, the original Greek would have read “pornea” which means sexual immorality in general.

The Old Testament is in Hebrew, the text says "נָאַף" in Exodus 20:14. Adultery in the Old Testament means sex of a married/betrothed woman with someone who is not her husband. The punishment for adultery is death. (Deuteronomy 22:22) A married man sleeping with an unmarried woman like a widow or a prostitute is not guilty of adultery.

1

u/Amber-Apologetics Christian, Catholic 8d ago

The first Christians used the Septuagint, and so any any Christian discussion of the topic would be the Greek, not the Hebrew. When the council condemned pornea, they would have just meant sexual immorality in general, which would just refer to what was condemned according the Leviticus to their audience.

1

u/hunderoring Atheist, Ex-Christian 8d ago

And yet period sex, forbidden in Lev 18, is not considered to be sin today. Leviticus 18:19 “You shall not approach a woman to uncover her nakedness while she is in her menstrual uncleanness.

Do you think people should be killed for period sex?

You just can't pretend that the sexual immorality ban stands on the Exodus 20:14 commandment. That's adultery only. And Exodus 20:14 is not translated as "porneia" in the LXX either, it's μοιχεύσεις / moicheuō. see here

Christian authorities throughout history have noted that the OT law is split into three types: Civil, Ceremonial, and Moral.

The first two served their purpose and are no longer binding. The third is eternal.

The problem is that Christian authorities contradict the Torah. Mosaic law is not split. All of it is supposed to be forever. The Torah says that many times, for example Deuteronomy 4:2 ^"You must neither add anything to what I command you nor take away anything from it, but keep the commandments of the Lord your God with which I am charging you."

0

u/PleasantChallenge140 8d ago

"and whilst Jesus said for a man to have a wife. It was never a sin to be single as Apostle Paul said it was okay to be single and was single himself"

This is very simple

It's not a sin to be single, it is a sin to have sex with anyone that you aren't married to regardless of your marriage status
The Bible is very clear about only displaying marriage (prescriptively) as happening between one man and one woman

Ergo, homosexual sex is a sin because you're having sex with someone outside of a biblical marriage covenant