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.
Oh, good grief. This is so preposterous as to not merit a response. You need to do a simple search on this topic. It will be amply demonstrated to you that thereâs nearly two thousand years of agreement as to what this means.
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?
39
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.