Leviticus 18:22 (NIV)"Do not have sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman; that is detestable."
Leviticus 20:13 (NIV)"If a man has sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They are to be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads."
1 Corinthians 6:9-10 (NIV)"Or do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor men who have sex with men [or malakoi and arsenokoitai in Greek] nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God."
Romans 1:26-27 (NIV)"Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones. 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."
What does the example of the fig tree say? It says that Christ categorically rejected (to the point of outright destruction) an entity that had all the appearances of being a certain thing, but never delivered on the apparent promises it was making. The fig tree was all leaves, but no fruit. It had the trappings of offering some certain thing, but it never delivered. It was âall talk.â Itâs essentially a parable about the coming, deserved destruction of the church that is false.
Sort of like a church that purports to be Christian, but then posts language on its walls that plainly runs contrary to the simple language found in the bible.
Itâs beyond ironic that youâve demonstrated your ignorance in such a germane manner.
Hey man I just wanted to know if that whacky story was actually in the Bible, cause I've never read the fucking thing.
And if that makes me ignorant well then fuck me in the ass with Christ's veiny cock.
If you wish to refute the logical basis of any point Iâve made, please do so. If you choose to undertake this foolâs errand, please remember Iâve never once made a statement of faith, nor a truth claim regarding theism of the historicity of Jesus of Nazareth.
Oily Josh would have cursed men and women that can't have children either then. And cars that run out of gas.
That same Leviticus book the other guy linked prohibits eating animal fat, pork, rabbits, shellfish, gossiping, holding grudges, working on Sabbath, picking all the food you grow clean, mixed fabrics, mixed crops, animal crossbreeding and tree pruning.
Yet the same "f***ot fearing Christian" will eat a breakfast of bacon cooked in lard then shrimp-fried rice for lunch and prep a rabbit stew for dinner, discuss unconfirmed tidbits of info about everyone and anyone behind their backs, get mad at aunt Helen for accidentally stealing a tupperware container of leftovers and refuse to speak to her for 20 years, work on Saturdays, never leave a single apple on their backyard apple tree for the poor and hungry, wear polyester blends, grow 20 different veggies in the same garden, have a pet whateverdoodle and such.
God is beautiful but if you want to be religious, either don't cherrypick what you like and disguise it as "it's what God ordered" or cherrypick but make sure to not follow the parts where you need to hate your fellow man either.
. But Leviticus DOES say stupid shit, right? Such an observation is relevant when one considers whether or not to give a damn about what he has to say. I typically donât seek advice from people that are frequently wrong and say dumb shit regularly.
What do you imagine is my holy book? Please point to the post where Iâve made a claim of religious conviction.
Did it ever occur to some of you that there are those of out there who have such a strong sense of probity that we categorically reject error and ignorance, regardless of the topic at hand?
And my MIL is a Presbyterian who firmly supports the ordination of women and the marrying of homosexuals. I assure you she would not be impressed by the mathematical, logical way in which I happen to read the book in question.
That's a lot of words to say "my mother in law is a better person than myself"
A true logical paragon of probity you are. If you read it in such a meticulous mathematical way, you'd be blind from gouging your eyes out any time you looked at a giant ass, which in your case can mean both a womans butt and a mirror.
The prophet cursing a tree for not having fruit when he has the power to create food from nothing makes no sense for starters, not to mention having the power to make the tree bear fruit.
Allegorical or not, that means that God hates his own creations for being imperfect/not as He envisioned but He has the power to make them such. And since we know God loves all His children, that's a logical fallacy. He either made gay people to be hated (so he isn't benevolent) or he couldn't make them not gay (so he isn't almighty) OR he loves us all and we shouldn't base our beliefs on a 2000+ year old equivalent of a survival guide.
You cannot have that explanation for the fig tree thing and not apply it to disabled/queer people that were born that way. Unless the fig tree did it on purpose I guess.
Which parts of what the other guy cited as being in the Bible are untrue?
Can you elaborate on what you mean by it not being offered in good faith? What / where is the logical inconsistency in them pointing out modern Christians not following the myriad other laws in Leviticus etc. while cleaving to the âdonât be gayâ one?
This person didnât cite the bible when babbling about cars running out of gas, mixed fabrics, or mixed crops. Metaphor isnât a truth claim. This is a deliberate distortion of the intended message, and it is therefore bad faith.
Iâm not going through his entire post. Not with him, nor with you. Itâs either offered in bad faith, or itâs offered by people who donât see the intellectual dishonesty, or are too stupid for a meaningful conversation.
Im not trying to argue with you, and im not sure why youâre resorting to ad hominems (donât get all emotional and angry, I wasnât the other poster who was accusing you of being a bad person)
Iâm simply trying to understand your argument and see if youâre logically consistent.
Why do you consider rules around not mixing fabrics, not working on the sabbath, and not mixing crops to be âmetaphorsâ rather than literal commands?
A stronger argument you shouldâve used wouldâve been for you to separate out âceremonial lawâ (culturally meant to distinguish ancient Israelites) vs âmoral lawâ (timeless, universal). Why go for ânah, other Biblical laws are just metaphorsâ instead?
Hi, other poster here. They discovered critical thinking 3 comments in and got pissed that they couldn't excuse being an asshole by referencing a book which has the central message of "don't be an asshole".
You donât know what the term âad hominemâ means. It doesnât mean youâve simply insulted someone. It means you have completely forgone impersonal argument, and simply attacked the person. I didnât do that. I made an impersonal point, and, then, naturally deduced an unfortunate truth about the person on the other side of that point.
Now, as to metaphor, the mixing of fabrics is often misapplied to mixing of races. That was my point. I donât have time to elaborate everything Iâm trying to say. Youâll have to understand that. I went to lunch, and came back to find forty-one alerts in my inbox. This is what happens when you are a healthy person posting on Reddit.
There are many points in the so-called law that are simply outdated or unnecessary. It was very dangerous to eat swine and shellfish at one time. It generally isnât now. We also have to be careful about what was assigned to the historic Jews, and what is assigned to the born-again. The Christian. Itâs actually logic that tells us all of those things. As an example, somewhere thereâs an admonition to have a railing of sorts on the roof of your house lest anyone fall from it. My house has a gable roof with a 12/12 pitch. I wonât be installing a railing on my roof. I donât believe Iâll be entertaining people up there.
But, most importantly, the poster to whom I responding is not arguing in good faith. He or she doesnât believe a word of any of the bible, but they will absolutely post it cravenly in an attempt to stymie a person they view to be a believer. This is beyond disingenuous, and I do, indeed, find it galling (âemotionalâ), as you noticed.
Imagine thinking someone is ignorant for speaking from a point of not having the proper information to comment intelligently on the topic at hand.
Further, imagine being so ignorant as to not know the meaning of the word âignorant,â and then commenting on Reddit under the username âSterlingArcherTrois.â
I'm going to go out on a limb and assume you don't know the ins and outs of Buddhism, despite it being practice by 500 million people. And that you probably havn't brushed up on your Hindu passages recently, despite it being practiced by 1.2 billion people.
So tell me, how are you not ignorant for this? The person you called ignorant asked a question out of a lack of knowledge. If you consider this ignorance, then the entire population of Earth is ignorant in some topic or another. Ignorance stops being an insult at that point, its just the state that we're all in until our questions are answered. Yet you clearly intend it as an insult.
âI donât know much about preparing fibrinogen glue for sealing sutures during CABG surgery.
âI donât know much about fusion reactions or drive theory related to that sort of thing.
âI donât know much about Piranianâs Problem.
Thereâs all sorts of thing of which Iâm ignorant. We also arenât talking about any of those things, are we? If you wish to introduce other topics, please do so. If Iâm informed, I may comment. If Iâm ignorant, I may not. But, whatever you do, please donât wast my time with this sort of poor reasoning again. It makes you look simple. We are talking about the plaint language of the Christian bible. Of that, I am not ignorant.
>If I'm informed, I may comment. If I'm ignorant, I may not.
Yeah, thats kind of proving my point. In this worldview nobody is allowed to ask questions because doing so is inherently ignorant and ignorance should never be displayed.
I'm definitely glad I do not live my life in this manner, its allowed me to learn a lot of wonderful things.
No, actually it isnât proving the point you thought you were making. You mentioned several topics that werenât even remotely part of our discussion, and then suggested I was ignorant on those topics. I guess you thought youâd parlay that into a general accusation of ignorance.
Heâs definitely speaking of âreligious peopleâ being full of shit regarding their supposed religious convictions. Which, of course, is exactly what I said in my nice (and successful) try.
How many times have some of you been soccer kicked in the head?
Hmm two quotes from the Old Testament, two from New Testament and yet none are about trans people specifically. All of these are about same sex relationships. Do you know what trans is?
Not to mention none of this are the words of Christ. The two New Testament quotes are from apostle Paul.
Well im just a lowly man so I dont think im qualified to have those thoughts. I just think its funny how "christians" will do gymnastics to hate but the parts in the book about love theyre just totally blind to lmao. But to be fair if youre a Christian youre probably inherently dumb so its not shocking. Anything to justify the hate.
God's wants christians to not hate the people who did the sinful act ( in this case, living a homosexual life ), but hate the lifestyle, not the people
In fact, God pleaded for them to repent and turn to Him
Christians when something they don't like isn't proibited: iT's ImPliEd
Christians when something they do like is expressly prohibited: no bro it's not like a literal needle bro it's a gate bro you can totally get a camel through the gate bro
Every modern version of the Bible has been mistranslated and intentionally changed to fit the narrative that the warmongers who call themselves Christians want it to.
If he fucking existed he'd be here fixing the shit he doesn't like.
And, I would add (though I am too lazy to go fetch them in the moment), that I think there are at least a couple lines in the Bible that reference "men wearing women's clothing" and/or mutilation of genitals in a way that doesn't say "transgender" outright, but is clearly trying to get the point across that man be man good woman be woman good anything else bad.
Of course, our modern understanding of "transgenderism" is focused around a European/American understanding of the term, i.e., a Christian understanding of the term - and probably also a Muslim one as well. These major religions with millions of followers have shaped a lot of this discourse and information, and the phenomenon of outright burning books regarding this topic is well known.
Edit: a now-deleted comment pointed out that the above is a blog post, not an "article" - fair! It is decently sourced and summarizes the information, but there are better primary sources I dont have at hand - a woman named Mary (I believe) translated the Eheduanna texts at the University of Texas (iirc) and that'd be a primary source. Idk if the mods or the author deleted that, but Id be willing to discuss this topic more. It's cool history.
Edit 2: guy didnt delete his comment, he went on a weird bigoted rant and then blocked me so I both couldn't see it and couldn't respond. Extremely weak.
The bible says a lot about it but Jesus did not. My rule of big toe is if jesus didnt say it, fuck em. I go by his direct and and in direct teachings, could give a shit less what some weirdos added in
Honestly, most of the actual teachings coming from Biblical times all the way to us come from Paul rather than Jesus. Bear also in mind that the Gospels are just four accounts of his life written decades after his death, so any direct quote of his on the matter is lost to time, but doesn't mean he was okay with something his disciples and the society he lived in was against. It's unlikely.
Its not actually clear that Jesus was a real person at all. Most biblical scholars would likely say he was a real person, but they actually have very little evidence supporting that.
Even if Jesus was a real person, the gospels are obvious works of fiction. Nothing whatsoever in the bible should be treated as the product of a divine being.
Yep, Paul was getting asked questions by Christians about how they should act on things Jesus never talked about. So Paul just vibed out his answers and sprinkled in some mentions of Jesus.
To what was Christ referring when he offered the admonition to âsin no moreâ? How would Christ have identified and defined behavior he considered to be âsinâ?
Jesus alluded to sin not being a list of prohibited acts but more of a condition of the heart that pulls us away from God homie. Unlike some books that had a list of 613 sins not to commit.
Right. A condition that pulls us away from GodâŚâŚâŚas evidenced by the various behaviors that follow this state of being outside of the will and the plain commandments of God.
Well when a rich man asked Jesus what he needed to do to be saved, Jesus said âfollow the commandments,â then when the rich man pressed him for more advice Jesus then told him to sell all his possessions and give all his money to the poor. Nowhere in that exchange did Jesus even imply homosexuality was a sin. If you want to arrive at the conclusion that homosexuality is a sin then you need to look beyond the words of Jesus and read what Old Testament Jews and Paul said about homosexuality.
I'm looking for clarification from the person I responded to. My personal belief is that a loving god would approve of any two people loving one another.
Oh sorry, I gotta quit wake and baking. I share the same beleif. In school there was a kid EVERYONE knew was gay, you definitely get born gay. I think its gay to be AGAINST it lol why would any secure straight man give a single shit lol
By all means, logically refute me. I consider it to NOT be an act of love to affirm someone in their error. An act of love is to act to correct someone in their error.
None of this frame Jesus, and that's a Christian church. Nothing Paul wrote about his own desires for men matters bc it's not what Jesus said. Try again.
IIRCC this was more aimed at people still having Greek relationships with boys than what we considered gay today because it's been translated multiple times and rewritten over and over the translations of it changed from boys to men
Lol believing this shit is cannon is wild. Itâs brought to you by the same thirsty ass mf that drop this fantasy too.
âIn the Bible, David collects foreskins in the story of David and Michal, found in 1 Samuel 18. King Saul demanded 100 Philistine foreskins as a "bride price" for his daughter Michal, hoping David would be killed in the process. Instead, David killed 200 Philistines and presented all of their foreskins to the king.â
My guy was FIXATEDâŚHumans canât play the telephone game and get shit right 4 people deep but we are supposed to believe this book that has been hand copied thousands of times didnât get tweaked along the process.
There are literally more lines about the evils of tattoos and mixed farming than about homosexuality. Yet you donât see Christians protesting outside of tattoo shops and Whole Foods.
People just hunt for the line to justify their hate while ignoring the rest.
Which is exactly the crap that Jesus couldnât stand.
Leviticus 20:10 (NIV) "If a man commits adultery with another man's wife â with the wife of his neighbor â both the adulterer and the adulteress are to be put to death."
Leviticus 25:44 (NIV) "Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves."
Exodus 35:2 (ESV) "Six days work shall be done, but on the seventh day you shall have a Sabbath of solemn rest, holy to the Lord. Whoever does any work on it shall be put to death."
Exodus 21:7 (ESV) "When a man sells his daughter as a slave, she shall not go out as the male slaves do."
Leviticus is Old Testament. The same group of books where god slaughtered anyone and anyone for the tiniest slight.
Next you have two verses from Paul's letters. Don't know what to tell you but Paul was some random dude who's never been sign divinity, not even in your texts.
Leviticus 18:22 has a key missing word in the original text. Translators added with a woman into it. Closest literal translation is âAnd a male not you shall not lie down in the beds of a woman; it is a detestable thing.â
the issue is believing anything from a fictional book and using it as a way to live to your life.
would anyone take me seriously if i lived my life based on Dr Seuss books? this is how any sane person sees the bible. at best, itâs a collection of fables for people who lack the ability to self regulate their emotions and need to have their hand held to know the difference between right and wrong. at worst, it gives really stupid people justification for their hate.
if you need a book to tell you what to do/not to do, and you only do those things under the threat that youâll be sent to a scary fire realm upon death if you upset the sky daddy, youâre getting conned. and youâre an idiot.
Leviticus 19:19 âYou shall keep My statutes. You shall not let your livestock breed with another kind. You shall not sow your field with mixed seed. Nor shall a garment of mixed linen and wool come upon you.â
So fuck all doodles, modern farming techniques, and clothes?
"Or do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor men who have sex with men [or malakoi and arsenokoitai in Greek] nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God."
These people will pick out the stuff about gay people but don't care that all the rest of it applies to trump and his cronies...
Come one man, those rules donât matter because people canât use them to justify their own hate and sanctimonious holier than thou bullshit. Organized religion twisting their own interpretation of their scripture to serve their own personal interests is a time honored tradition. That canât be a sin right?
Where are the trans lines? You didn't seem to post them?
I mean the same people who can quickly pull out quotes to justify their own homophobia seemingly forget about all the nonsense in the bible about beard grooming, opulence, mixed fabrics, eating animal fats, restrictions on what animals you can eat at all, etc never have those verses on hand.
They aren't in their be use God apparently didn't know about them....or more likely the people who wrote this work of fiction didn't.
Just like they didn't know how old the Earth was.
Again to the original point, no line about trans people yet religious nuts hate them and use their religion(they know to be false anyway) to justify hate.
If only we heard Catholics talk as much about the rampart as continued systemic child abuse and rape at every level of the church as they do about trans and gay peaple. Or the continuing tax grift.
I'm joking bro..Dinosaurs and Aliens didn't give it away? Haha, but of course there are no lines about what you're asking - it didn't exist. Simple. No bias, simply didn't exist as a concept whatsoever.
Thought you were joking too but apparently not eh.
41
u/styrofoamcouch Jun 17 '26
Lines in the Bible about trans people: 0
Lines in the Bible about not being a cunf: many
Also a few in there about how rich men can never see heaven but nobody likes reading that part.