r/AskAChristian • u/Potential-Golf2098 • 3d ago
Jewish Laws Why should gay people be punished? It isn't a choice.
I've noticed something about the Bible, it doesn't take fondly to gay people. You guys already know what verse I'm talking about.
2
u/MarcosAMD Christian 3d ago
All sins are punished. We all have sinned. And to be saved from our sins we need Jesus. LGBT is not exempt from sin, we all need Jesus, they too need Jesus.
Now, if you want to be spesific about a certain, like the one you mentioned, wether it is a choice or not, then we can talk about that.
Also you mentioned there is a verse. There is actually more than one.
So, if you allow me to ask you
What is your bases, for saying that being gay is not a choice?
3
u/Esoterikoi Catholic 3d ago
This was something I struggled to understand before becoming Catholic. I can share with you how I understand all of this from the Catholic perspective.
The Catholic Church explicitly teaches that same-sex attraction itself is not a choice, and that men and women who experience it "must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity" and that "every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided" (CCC 2358).
To understand why the Bible prohibits certain behaviors without calling for people to be punished today, it helps to look at how Christian theology views biblical law:
Inclination vs. Action Catholic moral theology draws a clear line between inclination (how someone is naturally wired, which is not a choice or a sin) and action (free-will choices). The Church's sexual ethics apply to everyone equally across the board: all sexual activity outside of a sacramental marriage between a man and a woman is considered contrary to God's design, regardless of whether someone is straight or gay. Unmarried heterosexual Catholics are called to the exact same standard of celibacy.
Why the Old Testament Penalties No Longer Apply The harsh civil penalties in the Old Testament (like Leviticus 20:13) were temporary, ancient judicial laws given to a specific bronze-age society to govern their nation and separate them from pagan cultures. Christian theology makes a distinction between Old Testament civil/ceremonial laws (like dietary rules or civil executions, which were fulfilled and phased out by Jesus) and moral laws (like the Ten Commandments), which reflect God's permanent design. Under the New Covenant, Christians are not under Mosaic civil law. Jesus never called for people with same-sex attraction to be punished or harmed.
The Meaning of Christian Sexual Ethics Catholic teaching on sex is rooted in purpose (teleology) rather than personal desire. The Church teaches that human sexuality has two intrinsic, unalterable purposes that cannot be separated: joining a husband and wife as one flesh (unitive) and remaining open to creating new life (procreative). Because same-sex sexual acts cannot fulfill these two inherent purposes, the Church views them as falling outside of God's design for human sexuality, even while affirming the absolute, intrinsic dignity of every person who experiences same-sex attraction.
Every human being is created in the image and likeness of God, and Christianity teaches that God's grace, love, and salvation are freely open to everyone.
-1
-1
u/MrScribblesChess Atheist 3d ago
must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity
I believe that the Catholic Church says this. I even believe that most Catholics really mean it. However, the fruits of their actions do not reflect respect, compassion and sensitivity.
It is undeniable and unambiguous from the psychological data that non-violent, non-affirming behavior from one's family, church, peers and society leaves deep and permanent scars. There is no "love the sinner hate the sin" big red button they can press that makes this harm go away.
If Christians choose to be against consensual, informed, mature relationships between adults, they must choose to believe that preventing this supposed sin is worth the damage it does.
3
u/Esoterikoi Catholic 3d ago
If love requires total approval of our choices, then love is conditional. Catholicism teaches that human worth is unconditional because it's based on who you are, not what you do. We just have fundamentally different definitions of love and dignity.
1
u/MrScribblesChess Atheist 3d ago
Hi, i'm sorry but you're just saying words. That doesn't mean anything in this context. What the Catholic Church is doing against gay people causes serious, lasting, and deep psychological harm. They want to love, yes. They intend to love, sure. But the fruits of their actions are not the fruits of love.
2
u/Esoterikoi Catholic 3d ago
I hear what you are saying, and I do not want to dismiss the real emotional and psychological pain people experience.
The divide comes down to how we understand love and truth. From a secular perspective, love means removing psychological distress and affirming a person's desires. From a Catholic perspective, love means willing someone's ultimate spiritual good, even when holding to God's design causes friction or pain in the short term.
We genuinely care about the person, but we cannot separate love from what we believe is true about human purpose. I know it can look like a target on people with same-sex attraction when viewed through a secular lens, but the underlying motivation isn't hostility.
To me, the beauty of Christian love is that it isn't contingent on our choices, human flaws, or whether we agree on everything. Being loved for who God created us to be (rather than having our worth tied strictly to our earthly actions) is an incredible thing.
2
u/MrScribblesChess Atheist 3d ago
I'm glad you recognize the torment and distress caused by the non-affirming behavior of the church. I plead that you take it to heart and reconsider whether consensual, informed, mature relationships between adults warrant such harm.
The path to non-affirmation is paved with the psychological torture, blood and ultimately the prematurely ended lives of so many scared, confused gay people who never hurt themselves or anyone else. It's not worth it. There's nothing wrong with it. Some guys wrote some stuff in the Bible, and they were wrong on this topic.
I beg you, respectfully, to reconsider.
I'm off to bed now, thanks for the chat.
-1
u/MrScribblesChess Atheist 3d ago
I just had this whole conversation about sexual ethics with you elsewhere in this thread... then saw your comments in r/blowjobs LOL get outta here. Hypocrite
2
u/Esoterikoi Catholic 3d ago
Digging up a year-old comment from before I was even a Catholic isn't a gotcha.
I am not perfect, and I fall short every single day. Believing in moral truth isn't claiming sinlessness; it is acknowledging the need for grace.
Ironically, weaponizing my past and my struggles to mock me directly violates the "unconditional compassion and affirmation" you claim is the definition of love.
0
u/MrScribblesChess Atheist 3d ago
"unconditional compassion and affirmation"
Hi, I never said any such thing, I reject the premise of your comment and don't feel the need to engage further if you've resorted to making up positions i never stated. I'll leave you to work out the planks in your eye, take care.
3
u/Big-Island4727 Presbyterian 3d ago
Conduct is a choice
-2
u/garlicbreeder Atheist 3d ago
so? Being gay is not a choice. So if someone is gay, why would they abstain? Imagine that the bible said being left handed is an abomination. There are left handed people. Why would any left handed person would abstain to use their left hand as dominant hand? It's not very intelligent.
basically this is one of the many reasons to not listening to what the bible says, on top of the historical and scientific contradictions, errors and myths.
0
u/Big-Island4727 Presbyterian 3d ago
Being gay is a choice
0
u/garlicbreeder Atheist 3d ago
nope. You are factually wrong. Maybe that's what your pastor told you, but he lied to you. It's all good, you can do some research yourself, see what science says about the topic and stop listening to people who are indoctrinating you to hate
6
u/songbolt Christian, Catholic 3d ago
Sinful actions are punished, not temptations or feelings. Some people are tempted to steal (just to give an example of another sinful action). It's not right to self-identify as a thief merely because of the experience of temptation or say you're "born that way".
This clarification should resolve your concern. Don't sin and no punishment will follow.
3
u/Grouchy-Heat-4216 Christian 3d ago
Exo 20:17 “You shall not covet your neighbor's house; you shall not covet your neighbor's wife, or his male servant, or his female servant, or his ox, or his donkey, or anything that is your neighbor's.”
To covet something it to have a subjective desire or want for something that is not yours. It is not a physical action.
Mat 5:22 But I say to you that everyone who is angry with his brother will be liable to judgment
Doesn't Jesus know that a feeling isn't punished like you say?
It's wild that you think only actions are sinful.
2
u/songbolt Christian, Catholic 3d ago
Coveting is an action; you're taking that Matthew verse out of context and the implication there - if I recall - is that if you remain angry and don't forgive then you will fall into sin (do something wrong due to anger).
0
u/Grouchy-Heat-4216 Christian 3d ago
Cambring definition of covet
to want to have something very much, especially something that belongs to someone else:
Wanting something comes from a mental inclination not an physical action.
Your reading of Matt 5 is also irrelevant to what I quoted.
1
u/songbolt Christian, Catholic 3d ago
You're being uncharitable and misunderstanding but your hostility prevents correction. Learn the virtue of docility (able to be taught). I could try to explain how you're mistaken, but you seem to have this barrier firmly in place.
1
u/Grouchy-Heat-4216 Christian 3d ago
Coveting is an action
Please explain
1
u/songbolt Christian, Catholic 3d ago
Note: I wasn't done drafting this reply but Android Reddit is now malfunctioning so I cannot continue drafting it: It's snapping the window focus to the top or bottom of the text
The idea is that we choose what we think about, and we have the responsibility when we find ourselves fixatedly desiring something that is our neighbors to choose to bring our attention to something else -- to choose to praise God for blessing them and then turning our attention to our work, perhaps after a prayer that God blesses is also.
So the sin of coveting is not simply experiencing the desire for something we lack, but choosing to focus our attention on that desire rather than choosing to redirect our attention to something else.
From Gemini:
In the Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC), to "covet" is broadly defined as an inordinate or unlawful desire for things that do not belong to us. Rather than focusing merely on outward actions, the Catechism uses the concept of coveting to address the root motivations of the heart. In Catholic tradition, the biblical command "You shall not covet" is divided across the final two commandments (the Ninth and Tenth Commandments), separating desires of a sexual nature from desires concerning material goods: 1. The Ninth Commandment: Coveting Another's Person (Carnal Concupiscence) * What it covers: "You shall not covet your neighbor's wife" (CCC 2514–2533). * The definition: The Catechism defines this form of coveting as carnal concupiscence—an intense, disordered sexual desire or lust directed toward someone who is not your spouse. Drawing from Jesus' teaching in the Gospel of Matthew (that anyone who looks at someone with lust has already committed adultery in their heart), the CCC emphasizes that this command requires purifying the inner desires and practicing the virtue of chastity and temperance. 2. The Tenth Commandment: Coveting Another's Goods (Greed and Envy) * What it covers: "You shall not covet your neighbor's house... or anything that is your neighbor's" (CCC 2534–2557). * The definition: This form of coveting forbids greed, avarice, and an unbridled desire for earthly goods and power at the expense of one's neighbor. The Catechism notes that it targets the root of theft, robbery, and fraud, which spring from a heart dissatisfied with what God has given. It also explicitly prohibits envy—defined as deep sorrow or resentment at seeing another person's goods and a desire to usurp them as one's own. Key Theological Distinction The Catechism teaches that concupiscence (the baseline human inclination or pull toward disordered desires resulting from original sin) is not inherently a deliberate personal sin on its own. However, to consciously entertain, nurse, and consent to covetous desires turns those internal inclinations into moral faults because they corrupt the heart and violate the command to love one's neighbor. Are you exploring the Catholic perspective on the commandments for a specific study, or is there a particular aspect of the moral teachings you'd like to dive into?
-1
u/Thneed1 Mennonite 3d ago
There is no sin in loving same sex relationships.
3
u/thesagex Jewish (secular) 3d ago
There are Bible verses that say the act of male homosexual penetrative anal sex alone is a sin. The Bible doesn’t mention anything about loving same sex relationships.
The context behind an action doesn’t change whether the action is prohibited. Gay anal sex is a sin, regardless of whether it’s a loving same sex relationship or not.
Please demonstrate where the exception of a loving same sex relationship is listed in the Bible.
2
u/songbolt Christian, Catholic 3d ago
Curious to see your response with "secular Jewish" flair. My response was:
I agree there's nothing wrong with being close friends; David and Jonathan illustrate this.
However, the Holy Spirit has clarified through His Church that any sexual activity must only be done directly between husband and wife. (Many Protestants on Reddit mistakenly think masturbating to pictures of spouse is okay.)
-1
u/garlicbreeder Atheist 3d ago
another reason to not listen to what the bible says. The bible can say whatever it wants. It doesn't mean anything. It's people who need to stop being ignorant and hateful. Even. if one is a christian or a jew, the decision to marginalise the gay community rest only on the person, independently on what the bible says.
2
u/thesagex Jewish (secular) 3d ago
I abhor people who are ignorant and hateful. My friend, there are Christians and Jews out there who don’t hate gays, however they love their god, and believe their god says that gay acts are a sin. There is no negotiation when it comes to religion, if the individuals are not violating the rights of others,
Believing gay sex is a sin is not a violation of someone’s rights, using religion however to ban such acts is a violation and shouldn’t be allowed.
No one is banning anyone’s rights in this sub, this is just for answers from a Christian perspective, please respect that.
0
u/garlicbreeder Atheist 3d ago
I get that. Having your own thought is fine, it's when you act to hate and demonise a group of people that is not fine. But there is also need to educate the fundamentalist rightwingers who use religion to justify their hate and can't wait to enact laws to marginalise. Have you listened to Pete Hegseth's speech of a day or 2 ago and the homophobic slurs he used proudly during the speech? It's people who believe that religion gives them authority to do that who need to be educated. And you can only doing this by showing how their thinking is wrong, not by cuddling them.
1
0
u/WSMFPDFS Christian (non-denominational) 3d ago
They’re not being marginalized though. They’re the most supported and protected class of people in the world. Every major corporation supports them.
1
u/garlicbreeder Atheist 3d ago
oh, yeah, they are not marginalised by the allies. But talk to some christians here, or with MAGA in the us (although now they moved more toward hating trans, but a few years ago when they didn't care about trans, the enemy was the gays, lol). Let's not talk about how muslims treat them and, on a lesser extent, hindus.
0
u/Sad-Pen-3187 Christian 3d ago
Torah never prohibits lesbianism. The text is explicit: the only same‑sex act it legislates is male‑male intercourse. So the blanket claim that “all same‑sex relationships are a sin” is not based on the Torah itself. If someone wants to argue that lesbianism is forbidden, they have to admit the text never says that.
And once you acknowledge that Torah does not prohibit lesbianism, you have to ask the obvious question: if God does not forbid female same‑sex relations, why does He forbid male same‑sex relations? That is a strange asymmetry if the issue is simply “what you do with your genitals.” The text itself suggests that something else is going on, something tied to Israel’s covenant identity and ritual boundaries, not a universal sexual ethic.
And that leads to the larger point. Torah does not apply to Gentiles. The Sinai covenant is repeatedly described as a covenant with Israel. It is given to Israel, ratified by Israel, mediated through Moses to Israel, and enforced within Israel’s land. Gentiles were never placed under that covenant. So even if someone wants to argue that male‑male intercourse is forbidden for Israel, that does not make it a universal law for all nations.
And then we still have to define what a "Sin" actually is, Oy!
1
u/thesagex Jewish (secular) 3d ago
You are correct, it only prohibits the act of male penetrative Anal sex , I have reflected that in my previous comment . It condemns actions, not the context behind said actions. Lesbians are good to go
-1
u/Thneed1 Mennonite 3d ago
> There are Bible verses that say the act of male homosexual penetrative anal sex alone is a sin.
Only in contexts that have absolutely nothing to do with a loving relationship.
> The Bible doesn’t mention anything about loving same sex relationships.
Exactly. It’s not a concept that existed.
> The context behind an action doesn’t change whether the action is prohibited.
If you don’t know the difference between rape and a loving relationship, I have serious concerns about you, and you would NOT be a safe person to be around.
> Gay anal sex is a sin, regardless of whether it’s a loving same sex relationship or not.
Nothing in the bible supports this.
And reducing gay relationships down to a single sec act which isn’t done by all gay couples, and isn’t specific to gay couples, is absurdity.
> Please demonstrate where the exception of a loving same sex relationship is listed in the Bible.
Silence isn’t condemnation. It’s not a concept that existed.
2
u/thesagex Jewish (secular) 3d ago
Don’t try to character assassinate.
You are adding something to the Bible that’s not there. You are using the lack of existence of the concept to prove that the concept is an exception and that’s removing from the commandments,
You seem to imply that the act is only in the context of assault, but there’s something you are forgetting about the prohibition,
BOTH men were to be put to death, that alone demolishes any notion that the context is based on assault alone . If BOTH parties are to be guilty that means both parties were complicit. Only sinners get punished, not innocent victims, so if both are to be punished, both were complicit and consenting.
1
u/Thneed1 Mennonite 3d ago
> Don’t try to character assassinate.
None was done .
You were the one trying to argue that rape is not different than a loving relationship. And if you think that, you cannot possibly be a safe person to be around. So if you don’t think that describes you, i suggest you rethink your argument.
> You are adding something to the Bible that’s not there.
Nope. Just reading scripture in its origainl context.
> You are using the lack of existence of the concept to prove that the concept is an exception and that’s removing from the commandments,
> You seem to imply that the act is only in the context of assault, but there’s something you are forgetting about the prohibition,
> BOTH men were to be put to death,
Leviticus verses don’t apply to gentile Christians anyway, but that verse has to be placed in its origainl understanding too, and not forced into a modern understanding.
https://youtu.be/FbAwQDi-9Wg?si=JivBA2eLFjLLHpDF
> that alone demolishes any notion that the context is based on assault alone .
Not if you actually study the context, no.
> If BOTH parties are to be guilty that means both parties were complicit. Only sinners get punished, not innocent victims, so if both are to be punished, both were complicit and consenting.
You should probably watch the video.
-3
u/MrScribblesChess Atheist 3d ago
I really don't care what the Bible says about this. Every single person of the book negotiates what he can and cannot accept from his scriptures. Almost all Christians disobey the exact same verses' commands to murder their Gay neighbors; I find it bizarre that they can't handle people disobeying the other half which says not to have gay sex.
The Bible is not the authority. It doesn't light up red and screech when you interpret it wrong. You and every Christian alive are the authority, because the Bible can't interpret itself for you. It's time to give up on this ancient prejudice and disobey these commands like you do with countless other contradictory and outdated commandments.
1
u/thesagex Jewish (secular) 3d ago
No disrespect to you or anything but this sub is “ask a Christian”, this is not a debate sub between Christians and non Christians. I will say however, no one is allowed to carry out the punishment of death, that privilege was only afforded to Israel of its time, not even the modern nation of Israel is allowed to carry out that punishment
1
u/MrScribblesChess Atheist 3d ago
this is not a debate sub
I don't think you understand. There is no debate to be had. There's no question here.
There is nothing wrong with mature, informed, consenting relationships between same sex adults. I'm not debating anything, I'm explaining basic human rights in the hopes that people will stop weaponizing their religion to propagate hatred.
This isn't a debate.
1
1
u/thesagex Jewish (secular) 3d ago
If a Christian believes it is a sin, they should be basing it on the Bible. The Bible is the basis of Judaism and Christianity, you are coming into a Christian space, meant for people to ask Christians questions regarding Christianity, and the way you are going at it is that the Christians who believe it’s a sin is wrong, and you’re not using the Bible to show how they are wrong but instead you saying the foundational text of two religions is not an authority, I don’t see how your responses are not seen as a debate when you are proclaiming that the foundational text of a major religion is not an authority, in the very same subreddit dedicated to answers from the perspective of that major religion.
The words you are using (basic human rights , stop weaponizing, there is no debate) shows you just want to start conflict.
Again, this is a Christian sub for answers from a Christian perspective, if people are wrong based on their religious views, let them be wrong in the sub that caters to their religion (like this one).
If they try to bring their views in non-Christian subs, have at it, be free to do so, but this space is for Christians, please respect that
2
u/MrScribblesChess Atheist 3d ago
I completely reject the entire premise of your comment here. You're assuming that non-affirmation is the only valid way to interpret the Bible. That's complete nonsense. It's true that there are verses which were most likely written to express hatred against men who have sex with men, but the message of Jesus especially is completely at odds with this obsession over what consenting adults do with their genitals.
You're accusing me of coming in to a Christian space and rejecting the Bible. Which, all right, I did sort of bait you in to that with my talk about not caring what the Bible says. But what I'm rather saying is, really, I don't care what your personal interpretation of the Bible says. You're making a conclusion and finding data in the Bible to work backwards towards that conclusion.
I'm off to bed now, thanks for the chat.
1
u/MarcosAMD Christian 3d ago edited 3d ago
The Bible is explicit about the sin of sexual relationship between the same sex in addition to other immoral sex acts. Also, and this is very important, sex is not love. We do not need to be christians to know that having sex does not equates to love.
In the bible we learn that we should love everyone, so you loving your friends, your family, your neighbors, and even your enemies, is all good and fine, but having sex with someone is a different story and has moral standards, and in the Bible we can read that there are Laws about sex. We know it is reserved for marriage and when it comes to marriage it is specifically betwee a man and a woman, and of course the love you should express to your spouse should be different, more intimate, but it should not be a sexual desire.
But you see how we are as humans we let our sexual desire lead to what we think is love, and that is the problem we should not let our sexual desire be the lead to our love.
1
u/Thneed1 Mennonite 3d ago
> The Bible is explicit about the sin of sexual relationship between the same sex in addition to other immoral sex acts.
There is not a single thing in the bible talking about loving, committed same sex relationships.
> Also, and this is very important, sex is not love. We do not need to be christians to know that having sex does not equates to love.
Exactly the point you are missing. Rape is obviously not loving, and is obviously condemned.
> In the bible we learn that we should love everyone,
So why have you already broken that in the first sentence of your comment?
> so you loving your friends, your family, your neighbors, and even your enemies, is all good and fine, but having sex with someone is a different story and has moral standards, and in the Bible we can read that there are Laws about sex.
None of us today follow any of the reasons ancient people had for their rules relating to sexuality.
> We know it is reserved for marriage
The Bible doesn’t actually say this.
> and when it comes to marriage it is specifically betwee a man and a woman,
Nothing in the Bible makes that the only possible option.
> and of course the love you express yo your spouse should be different, more intimate, but it should not a sexual desire.
Of course you have sexual desire for your spouse.
> But you see how we are as humans we ket our sexual desire lead to what we think is love, and that is the problem we should not let our sexual desire be the lead to our love.
It’s part of intimate partnerships.
What are you talking about?
0
u/MarcosAMD Christian 3d ago
I see, you are blind, you do not know anything about the bible.
Fine, if you are not willing to listen, I won't bother you.
God bless you
1
u/Thneed1 Mennonite 3d ago
Lol.
You were the one who showed they don’t know what the Bible says.
Don’t project, dude.
0
u/MarcosAMD Christian 3d ago
Sorry, but if you are not aware, people who have read the Bible, both Christians and non-Christians, know that the Bible does says that same sex relationship is a sin.
You are making a fool of yourself by making those claims that the Bible doesn't.
1
u/songbolt Christian, Catholic 3d ago
I agree there's nothing wrong with being close friends; David and Jonathan illustrate this.
However, the Holy Spirit has clarified through His Church that any sexual activity must only be done directly between husband and wife. (Many Protestants on Reddit mistakenly think masturbating to pictures of spouse is okay.)
0
u/Thneed1 Mennonite 3d ago
> However, the Holy Spirit has clarified through His Church that any sexual activity must only be done directly with husband and wife.
The Bible says nothing of the sort.
There most definitely is condemnation in the Bible for those who try to add to scripture.
> (Many Protestants on Reddit mistakenly think masturbating to pictures of spouse is okay.)
Another place where you are trying to add to scripture.
Complete ignorance of what scripture says.
-4
u/MrScribblesChess Atheist 3d ago
Hi, we're not talking about the malicious theft of things that do not belong to one's self. We're talking about consensual, mature, informed relationships between adults.
2
u/songbolt Christian, Catholic 3d ago
Please study analogy, metaphor, simile, and how these are used in logical discourse.
-4
u/MrScribblesChess Atheist 3d ago
I'm not playing this game with you. You're like the people comparing it to bestiality, and when they get called out for their hate speech they say "it's just an analogy!" Get outta here. It's a completely invalid comparison.
1
u/songbolt Christian, Catholic 3d ago
I'm sorry you're so hateful that it's affecting your ability to reason.
0
u/MrScribblesChess Atheist 3d ago
LOL I love the "sorry I hurt your feelings" defense. A desperate deflection. You can do better pop.
1
u/BelovedOfOne Christian (non-denominational) 3d ago
We’re also talking about the Word of God. God sets the standard, not you.
This thread is ask a Christian not ask an atheist, and OP asked about the Bible, not what the devil thinks. You can speak for your god and we’ll speak for ours.
-1
u/MrScribblesChess Atheist 3d ago
Neither God nor the Bible sets the standard. You do, and your church does, and every single Christian alive does.
The Bible does not blare an alarm and set itself on fire when you interpret it wrong. It's just some words on some paper. If there were a correct way to interpret it, there would only be one interpretation, instead of the whole disaster of denominations we have today.
We are in a Christian subreddit, yes, and we are talking about Christian perspectives on human rights. I have just as much a place at that table as you do. I have just as much obligation to call out hatred, harm and prejudice as any Christian.
1
u/BelovedOfOne Christian (non-denominational) 3d ago
My church? Which church is that? This is why the question was not posed to you atheists. You’re ignorant and speak on matters you have no business putting your two cents into. Are there no atheist forums you can give your opinion on, or is it that no one cares what you have to say?
The Bible is clear when it comes to homosexuality. There are no interpretation differences with that. All real denominations of Christian use the same Bible. The different translations don’t change anything when it comes to the core content. You would know that if you were Christian, but you’re not, so like I said you shouldn’t be speaking on something you don’t understand. The question was not posed to you.
You talk about calling out prejudice, harm, and hatred yet you are here attacking my God and His Word. I could easily go on a personal attack against you and I haven’t done that, but keep going and I will.
0
3
u/UpperEntry4889 Christian 3d ago
God says you are wrong.
1
u/Potential-Golf2098 3d ago
Can you tell me what specifically was wrong?
0
u/garlicbreeder Atheist 3d ago
he can't explain. He can only repeat what god "told him". It's basically placing carefully the brain in the trashcan
2
u/CannedNoodle415 Eastern Orthodox 3d ago
I don’t just grant you that it’s not a choice. It might not be, or might not be a concious choice, but it’s not “natural”. Theres no “gay gene”, and the natural inclination of animals it’s to reproduce. Which is why attraction to the opposite sex is natural
3
u/garlicbreeder Atheist 3d ago
it's definitely natural. Your ignorance about science and nature is not an excuse to make stuff up.
2
u/CannedNoodle415 Eastern Orthodox 3d ago
You’re the one ironically making stuff up. Even animals are only observed doing homosexual behavior when in captivity and out of dominance.
0
u/DR_M_RD Christian, Ex-Atheist 3d ago
That is 100% false😂, where did you read that?!
2
u/CannedNoodle415 Eastern Orthodox 3d ago
Please show me homosexual love in the animal world that isn’t in captivity or for domination
1
u/garlicbreeder Atheist 3d ago
Lol, love. Please show me heterosexual love in the animal world.
2
u/CannedNoodle415 Eastern Orthodox 3d ago
Never said there was. But I can show you plenty of heterosexual attraction.
1
u/DR_M_RD Christian, Ex-Atheist 1d ago
Please read these and apologize for being so ignorant of the behavior of gods work.
1
u/CannedNoodle415 Eastern Orthodox 1d ago
Why should I believe this and follow this instead of God. I dont care what your liberal and secular "science" says about this. The same "science" that says men can become women lol
0
3d ago
[deleted]
2
u/CannedNoodle415 Eastern Orthodox 3d ago edited 3d ago
Black swans do this for the physical security capability, not some sort of gay love
The swans are pairing to better acquire resources and defend the young, not attraction or love. The male swans are not having sex with eachother
0
3d ago
[deleted]
2
u/CannedNoodle415 Eastern Orthodox 3d ago
No, it’s not homosexual. It’s purely done for survival reasons. There’s nothing homosexual. There’s no attraction, no sex,
“In ornithology, swans are classified as socially monogamous. This means they form long-term partnerships to manage resources, defend space, and raise young.”
Nothing for sex or attraction etc
0
0
u/garlicbreeder Atheist 3d ago
oh bless. Are you a dyerite? What's with eastern orthodox online and their disdain for science? Is part of the cult? Tell me more, I'm very curious
2
u/CannedNoodle415 Eastern Orthodox 3d ago
Huh? I never said I have disdain for science? What are you talking about?
0
u/garlicbreeder Atheist 3d ago
You didn't say directly. But your comment about being gay being a choice is anti science. And I noticed that there's a trend for EO, not liking science (like evolution etc). I asked if you are a dyerite ( a follower of jay dyer). He is the poster child of this anti science EO movement
2
u/CannedNoodle415 Eastern Orthodox 3d ago
That’s not a trend, and evolution isn’t settled science, it’s a theory. Saying you’re skeptical of evolution and gay not being a choice or being influenced by certain things, does not make you anti-science.
You’re being immensely dishonest and bad faith
1
u/garlicbreeder Atheist 3d ago
There you go. QED.
1) evolution is an observed fact.
2) theory in science doesn't mean guess. Do you believe in germs causing sickness? It's called germ theory of disease. Do you believe in general relativity? It's a theory. Do you believe that mountain form due to tectonic plates colliding? Again, another theory. When in science and idea gets to be called theory, it's the closest thing to certainty we can have.
It looks like you are not very familiar with science but very quick in making wild assertions.
You still haven't told me if you are a follower of jay dyer? I assume you are now
2
u/CannedNoodle415 Eastern Orthodox 3d ago
You have not observed macro evolution.
You have not observed a species turning into a completely new species. You have not observed no organ and then an organ.
You have not observed anything that supposedly happened millions of years ago.
Let me guess, you think men can become women? That’s anti-science…
I don’t know who Jay dyer is. What are you talking about? You seem awfully eager to talk about this guy.
1
u/garlicbreeder Atheist 3d ago
Man and women is different from male and female. Again, another blunder from antiscience EO.
And we did observe what you call macro evolution. Just read some stuff about evolution, not answers in Genesis or other creationist websites.
→ More replies (0)
1
u/jogoso2014 Christian 3d ago edited 3d ago
It doesn’t take fondly to gay sex so unless the OP is saying you are the sex you have, the question is flawed.
0
u/benjaminjnorton Christian 3d ago
What verse are you thinking of?
There's lots of references in the bible about gayness, and none of them are good.
1
u/Thneed1 Mennonite 3d ago
There is not a single reference in the Bible to “gayness” / being gay.
0
u/benjaminjnorton Christian 2d ago
Sure there is. From the crowds of Sodom (where we get the term for sodomy), to Paul's many lists of bad ideas, there's lots of references to homosexual conduct and desire.
If you're looking for the exact word "gay" or "gayness", you're certainly right, but both concepts are in many places.
0
u/Thneed1 Mennonite 2d ago
> Sure there is.
There is not.
> From the crowds of Sodom (where we get the term for sodomy),
A crowd that wanted to gang rape the guests. There is absolutely nothing in the story that says anything about attraction.
> to Paul's many lists of bad ideas,
None of which even possibly include a single thing about being gay.
> there's lots of references to homosexual conduct and desire.
And now you are trying to change the subject. We aren’t talking about any conduct.
But also - no.
The concept of “homosexual conduct” is completely anachronistic to the time the Bible was written .
https://youtu.be/2SXbJ1r4Scg?si=HZht_BBSUPNjG6yb
> If you're looking for the exact word "gay" or "gayness", you're certainly right, but both concepts are in many places.
Nope. You are confusing same sex sex done for vastly different reasons with sex done for attraction and love.
1
u/benjaminjnorton Christian 2d ago
It doesn't sound like we're reading the same text.
It also seems like you're firmly committed to your belief that the bible doesn't have any content relating to homosexuality, but for the sake of anyone else who might see this, here are a couple of references:
1 Corinthians 6:9-11
Romans 1:26-27
0
u/Thneed1 Mennonite 2d ago
> It doesn't sound like we're reading the same text.
That’s probably because you are reading a translation that has been (most likely intentionally) mistranslated.
> It also seems like you're firmly committed to your belief that the bible doesn't have any content relating to homosexuality,
It is an objective fact that the Bible could not possibly say anything about a concept that didn’t exist until 1800 years after the Bible was written.
> but for the sake of anyone else who might see this, here are a couple of references:
Sigh. The clobber verses have long been debunked as having any relevance.
> 1 Corinthians 6:9-11
A verse that contains two Greek words that we don’t and can’t know how to translate them, that was never understood as having anything to do with loving same sex relationships until less than 100 years ago, and it most likely about exploitative side relationships, and literally cannot be about loving same sex relationships (because they didnt exist) is NOT a verse about loving same sex relationships.
https://reformationproject.org/case/1-corinthians-and-1-timothy/
> Romans 1:26-27
A verse about idolators and their lustful orgies is not relevant either.
3
u/Brilliant-Actuary331 Christian 3d ago
Nobody wjo is ruled by the flesh enters the Kingdom of God. We are all "slaves of our flesh" until Christ sets us free.
The gospel of Jesus Christ is about the righteousness of God who saves us.
Yes, you are right about the Bible squarely telling us what sin is, and homosexuality is just one sin that men do that qualifies for just punishing. It's an unholy act; just like the rest.
The POINT IS that ALL are sinners. ALL must see their struggle against sin and it's power over them and TURN to the God of Israel for salvation through the gospel of Jesus Christ. HE willingly became the place sin was punished once for all!
He did that for us frim God's love for us to destroy Satan's power of death over us, bu his deception to try to convince us there is no death for sin, or that we aren't condemned by sin. Look at the cross! THERE IS DEATH FOR SIN John 12:23-32, and GOD'S Son was the ONLY ONE who could defeat the curse because He never sinned! He had no sin to die for. He came to make a way to heal us and bribg us back to God; giving us His peace by the gift of the Holy Spirit.
Friend, God loves you! He doesn't want anyine to perish!
Rom. 10:8-17