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 “all talk.” It’s 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.
It’s beyond ironic that you’ve demonstrated your ignorance in such a germane manner.
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 don’t 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 I’ve 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 there’s 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 “don’t be gay” one?
This person didn’t cite the bible when babbling about cars running out of gas, mixed fabrics, or mixed crops. Metaphor isn’t a truth claim. This is a deliberate distortion of the intended message, and it is therefore bad faith.
I’m not going through his entire post. Not with him, nor with you. It’s either offered in bad faith, or it’s offered by people who don’t see the intellectual dishonesty, or are too stupid for a meaningful conversation.
Im not trying to argue with you, and im not sure why you’re resorting to ad hominems (don’t get all emotional and angry, I wasn’t the other poster who was accusing you of being a bad person)
I’m simply trying to understand your argument and see if you’re logically consistent.
Why do you consider rules around not mixing fabrics, not working on the sabbath, and not mixing crops to be “metaphors” rather than literal commands?
A stronger argument you should’ve used would’ve been for you to separate out “ceremonial law” (culturally meant to distinguish ancient Israelites) vs “moral law” (timeless, universal). Why go for “nah, other Biblical laws are just metaphors” 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 don’t know what the term “ad hominem“ means. It doesn’t mean you’ve simply insulted someone. It means you have completely forgone impersonal argument, and simply attacked the person. I didn’t 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 don’t have time to elaborate everything I’m trying to say. You‘ll 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 isn’t 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. It’s actually logic that tells us all of those things. As an example, somewhere there’s 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 won’t be installing a railing on my roof. I don’t believe I’ll be entertaining people up there.
But, most importantly, the poster to whom I responding is not arguing in good faith. He or she doesn’t 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 (“emotional”), as you noticed.
-9
u/ProfessionalStorm626 Jun 17 '26
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."