Leviticus 18:22: "Do not practice homosexuality, having sex with another man as with a woman. It is a detestable sin."
>>5470074
Every time I pick up a bible and read that it is translated differently. Why should I trust your translation?
Good thing all religions mean nothing and are just tools to manipulate the masses!
>>5470074
Lefagicus 20:12
Have as much gay sex as possible, because it feels good man and hits the spot.
![JesusHung[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/U1DtFC0.jpg "JesusHung[1].jpg")
Nobody cares.
>>5470102
>prays to Jesus
>>5470074
Might wanna focus on the 10 Commandments before moving to the other shit those neanderthals were talking about.
>>5470074
http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_bibh4.htm
Not only that, the actual Hebrew translation only makes sense if you consider trannies undergoing transition after surgery. After all, you can't lay with a man, like a woman. Unless he has the parts down there.
>>5470136
Not to mention it probably makes no sense to marry a sterile. And if you ain't having children, why are you going to fuck like it was an acceptable hobbie?
>this thread
>>5470074
>cherry-picking from Leviticus
Leviticus 19:19 "You shall keep my statutes. You shall not let your cattle breed with a different kind. You shall not sow your field with two kinds of seed, nor shall you wear a garment of cloth made of two kinds of material."
>>5470074
That's a completely false translation. The KJV gets it pretty close, but can still give the wrong impression. Try reading the whole chapter for context.
The section that line is taken from deals specifically with the worship of the pagan god Molech, which many Jews had fallen back into worshiping. The two most popular forms of Molech worship were child sacrifice (condemned in the passage immediately preceding the one you cited) and ritual sex with male prostitutes in the temple. It is pagan idolatry that is being declared a sin - the Hebrew word commonly rendered as "abomination" (to'evah) would more accurately be translated as "ritually unclean". Leviticus, after all, consists of directives for the priests.
>>5470074
SPOILERS FFS
>>5470074
What if I'm having sex with another man, not "as with" a woman, but "as a" but I'm not a tranny, I just wear qt clothes.
>>5470074
>translating the bible using a word coined in the late 19th century
That's adorable bait OP
Didn't Leviticus also say to not wear blended fabrics?
Leviticus is for Jews
But Israel doesn't seem to care anyway
>>5470074
>Leviticus 19:28 Ye shall not make any cuttings in your flesh for the dead, nor print any marks (tattoo's) upon you: I am the LORD.
>>5470074
>Leviticus 19:19: You must obey all my decrees. Do not mate two different kinds of animals (mules). Do not plant your field with two different kinds of seed. Do not wear clothing woven from two different kinds of thread.
>>5470074
>having sex with another man as with a woman
To have sex with a woman is to put your penis in her vagina, right? Having sex with a man in his pooper wouldn't be doing his "as with a woman" because you don't stick it in women's poopers. The man on man equivalent would be docking. This is what God hates and why he ordered Abraham and the others to be circumcised. If He hated all gay sex why didn't He say "don't have sex with a man in any way" or something like that?
>>5470074
>Leviticus 18:23: Do not have sexual relations with an animal and defile yourself with it. A woman must not present herself to an animal to have sexual relations with it; that is a perversion.
Christians need to be told not to have sex with animals lmao
>Leviticus 19:34 The foreigner residing among you must be treated as your native-born. Love them as yourself, for you were foreigners in Egypt. I am the Lord your God.
>>5470074
>Do not practice homosexuality, having sex with another man as with a woman.
Which is why I fuck twinks, femboi and traps. Feedsgood to be straight man. YannowhatImean? :^)
> Leviticus 1:14
> If the offering to the Lord is a burnt offering of birds, you are to offer a dove or a young pigeon
Fuck. Forgot that I tried to sage yesterday. Shouldn't have anything on my name field now.
> Leviticus 11:16
> the horned owl, the screech owl, the gull, any kind of hawk
>>5472220
>likewise, the frog
>>5470716
>The two most popular forms of Molech worship were child sacrifice (condemned in the passage immediately preceding the one you cited) and ritual sex with male prostitutes in the temple. It is pagan idolatry that is being declared a sin
You do know that immediately afterwards he's talking about bestiality.
is that magically related to temple prostitution too?
No.
In fact there's literally nothing that indicates that the cited passage of leviticus about homosexuality has anything to do with temple prostitution at all.
That's just shoehorned in by christian apologists so they can pretend that christianity isn't the same gay hating cult it has always been.
>>5470604
>not using bait to educate lurkers
>>5472415
Leviticus is called that because it's entirely rules for the priestly caste, the tribe of Levi. It literally only applies if your last name is Levi or Cohen.
>>5472440
>It literally only applies if your last name is Levi or Cohen.
And christianity disagreed with that notion and enforced the rules on everyone.
Which perfectly explains christianity's rabid hate for gay people.
>>5472498
Christianity didn't enforce the rules on anyone. Crop rotation was never abolished in christian Europe, neither was any of the rules ever applied unless some pope got a bug up his ass about gays.
>>5472508
>Christianity didn't enforce the rules on anyone.
>All these anti gay laws came falling from the sky
Sure if you believe that.
>>5472516
They're mostly from Paul. Protestants later cherry-picked Leviticus, but the main roots of christian anti-gay rules are in the Epistles.
>>5472415
Just because Christianity was so anti-gay in the past doesn't mean that is how it always has to be (mainly because lol declining members). Reformations exist for a reason.
>>5472543
What specifically in Paul supports the anti-gay laws? Every time I ask a Christian why homosexuality is wrong, they point in Leviticus.
>>5472607
There's nothing really legalistic in Paul, but a lot of Paul was dug up for the canon because it made good philosophical backing for a lot of moralistic laws when squinted at the right way and nothing pleased the church fathers and their medieval successors more than sterile scholastics.
>>5472543
>They're mostly from Paul.
Who based his writings on Leviticus, since the book of Leviticus were the most well known laws about sexual immorality.
>>5472564
>Reformations exist for a reason.
That is mostly about how the church of Christ should function, not about the law of God.
And that's not even taking into account the hypocrisy of 'accepting gays' just to score more members, knowing full well the true stance of the religion, the holy book it's based on and the entire history surrounding it.
There's a reason the lowest circle of hell is for the traitors.
>>5472607
“Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, will inherit the kingdom of God” (1 Corinthians 6:9–10).
“But we know that the Law is good, if one uses it lawfully, realizing the fact that law is not made for a righteous person, but for those who are lawless and rebellious, for the ungodly and sinners, for the unholy and profane, for those who kill their fathers or mothers, for murderers and immoral men and homosexuals and kidnappers and liars and perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to sound teaching, according to the glorious gospel of the blessed God, with which I have been entrusted” (1 Timothy 1:8–11).
Leviticus is just shorter, more explicit and easier to remember so they use that one more often.
2 Samuel 1:26: "I grieve for you, Jonathan my brother; you were very dear to me. Your love for me was wonderful, more wonderful than that of women."
>>5473624
2 Samuel 1:27 "No homo."
>>5472564
True. After all that text is from the old testament which means Jews are supposed to be following it as well and they're almost always homofriendly
>>5470074
I beg to differ.
>>5474335
And yet the jews still haven't edited shitty little verses out of their holy book either. Every year there's more little gay Jewish children being brainwashed into thinking they're worth less then the straight scum because of the lies they read in that holy book, but the straight scum refuse to fix their book of lies.
Until they do, none of them are gay friendly. Not one Christian or Muslim or Jew in the entire world is yet. I know because I've never once heard of one tearing out those lies out of their holy books, or using White-Out(TM), or anything
Believe me, when I say all straight people deserve to be killed, no straight people have went and said, "He likes us straight people, he just says that because it's tradition! It's his culture, you can't judge him for that!"
>>5473624
He explicitly states that his love of his brother is of a higher value to him than womenly (bodily) love.
He is talking about brotherly love, not sex.
>tfw faggots have only one word for love and it doesn't even mean love.
Why do perverts have to pervert everything?
>date guy
>he's religious
>really cute
>he's embarassed of it because I'm agnostic
>he acts like he isn't religious at all because of that
why do religious people not believe you, if you tell them, that you have no hard feelings at all towards religion of any kind?
Is it the fedora-atheists' fault?
>>5475985
Religious people compete for who feels guiltier.
An agnostic saying that religious people are ok screams bitch, which screams guilt.
So he's got to outcompete you, which means crying in public, or something equally pussy.
>>5470074
>Old Testament
Get out, kike.
>>5475996
wat
>>5476125
Most religious people in first world countries are too pussy to get angry. Unless they have brain damage from fetal alcohol syndrome. Otherwise, they compete for who's more passive-aggressive. Whoever is the lower is the highest, whoever is the weakest is the strongest. You know, the first will be last, up will be down, good is bad, truth is lies, that sort of thing. Jesus bullshit.
>tfw living in a community that is mostly Christian but nobody gives a shit.
Seriously whenever I hear people talking about something being a sin I can't believe we live on the same planet.
Sure they say things like "disgusting", "fucked up", "perverted" but nobody is quoting a fucking Bible.
>>5476136
That would require that they had read the bible, which would require that they could read.
>>5470074
"lemme suck that dick"
-thomas aquinas
>>5475985
I worry I might end up in this situaution
>>5476131
nah, he's actually very aggressive in his political views (what I find incredibly attractive and annoying at the same time). it's just, that he apparently made a lot of bad experiences with other gay people, who opposed christianity for obvious reasons.
now that I think of it hardly anyone has ever understood the fact, that I envy religious people. religion would have given me so much as a person, especially as a youth, but my mind just can't believe.
They go on about this one but I don't see any men bathing for seven days straight after busting one in their wives.
>>5470074
>having sex with another man as with a woman
You do it anally, not vaginally so it's not the same way you'd have sex with a woman. God just wanted to give a heads up that prostate exists and that rubbing sausages against oneanother wont be as fun.
>>5470074
Leviticus. Literally old testament.
Hebrew book (Jewish).
OP posts picture of Roman Catholic leader.
Google is your friend, no excuse for this level of ignorance.
It's 2016!
Poor bait. 2/10 at best.
Direct your leviticus hate to the Jews and Israel where it belongs.
>>5476568
see, I really don't understand it.
what's the big fucking deal if I don't believe in anything? it doesn't even bother him, that I don't share his belief, he just feels lesser for it for some reason, that he isn't able to tell or doesn't want to tell.
I mean, he is probably scared of pushing me away by showing his belief, because so many gay people are intolerant towards religion, but I did my best to show him, that this wouldn't be the case.
it really does bother me a bit because I don't want him to hide who he is.
>>5476582
god doesn't know shit, frotting is sexy as fuck
>>5476586
maybe hes trying to convert you through guilt?
>>5476599
no, he's not talking about it at all.
he was surprised that I am agnostic because I'm somewhat excentric and am into philosophy, got all quiet about it and changed the subject.
I think he is kinda disappointed, but I think it's mainly, that he is afraid I would think he was trying to convert me and be pushed away by it.
It doesn't really help, that he doesn't want to talk about it at all. well, we're not together that long, so I guess it will change, but it's a bit of a let-down.
It really seems like he had problems with other guys in the past. to be fair here, a lot of gay people are bigots regarding religion.
>>5476662
hug him and ask if its that big a deal you dont believe in christ?
>>5470646
>nor shall you wear a garment of cloth made of two kinds of material
Forgive me Father for I have sinned.
>>5472669
I do wonder if that's just Paul or if Jesus said anything about it.
Well I put it in his ass so it's not like being with a woman at all.
>>5476582
Finally a smart person.
>>5476714
he doesn't mind. he told me and it was genuine.
when I brought the topic up again after the first time he seemed very defensive and since I don't mean to disrespect him at all, I let it go.
I simply wish, that he would understand, that I don't mind if he wants to talk about his belief or anything, I won't try to turn him agnostic or atheist or something and I want him to know that, it didn't work though.
I think it's very likely, that he has been bashed for his belief before and some autistic fucks have tried to argue him out of it. I guess he'll understand eventually though, I don't want to push that topic since it's only a bit bothering to me.
religious gay people have a shitty place in the community tbhfam, homosex-ppl can be very intolerant.
> having sex with another man as with a woman. It is a detestable sin.
Good thing the way I have sex with women and men is fundamentally different.
This joke is unoriginal and someone has probably already made the same one in this thread.
>>5476917
Both of those passages literally say "homosexual". The concept of homosexuality never even existed until the 19th century. The actual greek word used is αρσενοkοιτης which ill-defined and only translated as such by modern translators. The King James translators struggled tremendously trying to translate it and used different translations for both of those verses.
The only real argument to be made in the New Testament against homosexuality is the end of Romans 1, and even then it's Paul telling about a group of people who turned to homosexuality because of their actual sin, forsaking God.
>>5476974
>tfw no modern religion about the male body, manliness and gay sex.
>>5477086
>what is Islam
>>5477086
>manliness
What's "manly" changes every decade.
>>5476136
Because people take their bible roleplay extremely seriously in the United States.
>>5477112
For some reason whenever I say manliness I visualize a tanned strong apollo's belt.
>>5477259
The only one on that list I even like is masculine.
>tfw no deep-voiced, masculine twink
>>5477259
>The definition of manliness we grew up with (hairy, strong, built, masculine, etc.)
But that definition of manliness was recent and mostly a result of the modern post-industrial malaise of a society where these traits were mostly useless.
Look up the history of male fashions worldwide and dare say that has ever been true or a universal. Hell, it wasn't even that true at anytime in the 20th century.
>>5476917
That's Paul's writings.
Jesus did have a nonspecific mention about 'sexual immorality' in some passage somewhere which according to most scholars refers to the laws of Leviticus.
>>5476974
>The actual greek word used is αρσενοkοιτης which ill-defined and only translated as such by modern translators.
"men" and "bed", where "bed" refers to the act of intercourse (which is where coitus comes from).
So it's merely a translator's issue and not about the actual meaning behind the word. Kinda like Schadenfreude. Meaning is pretty clear but it's tough finding a translation that fits.
If the bible were a medical handbook Paul would have used MSM.
>>5476952
>religious gay people have a shitty place in the community tbhfam, homosex-ppl can be very intolerant.
And it shouldn't be surprising why that is.
>>5477470
Except the word appears in multiple texts (though very few relative to other greek words) after Paul's usage and is rarely if ever used in the way you're implying it "clearly" means. Compound words in English don't always mean the literal combination of its parts, take butterfly, egghead, honeydew, etc, so I'm not sure why you think this Greek word would so obviously be different.
>>5476952
I guess it depends on where you live. Here in the midwest, most gay people I know identify as Christian and our pride parades are full of inclusive church groups.
>>5477477
Bad experiences from individuals you believe represent a nebulous group doesn't justify hatred of said nebulous group. It might explain it, but being an asshole because others have been assholes to you is never just.
>>5477553
>I'm not sure why you think this Greek word would so obviously be different.
Because the Bible of Paul and of his readers in the first century was the Septuagint, which is the Greek translation of the Hebrew Old Testament. Why is that important?
When you look at the Septuagint’s translation of Leviticus 20:13, which is one of the verses condemning homosexual behavior, something very interesting is found: the compound word Paul uses for homosexual in 1 Corinthians and 1 Timothy
>pic related
The text could not be any more plain – arsēn and koitē are side by side and form the homosexual term that Paul used in his New Testament epistles. This fact devastates any argument that asserts a person cannot know the real meaning behind many words formed via compound terms. In this case, it is very clear.
>"If you hear it said about one of the towns the Lord your God is giving you to live in that troublemakers have arisen among you and have led the people of their town astray, saying, ‘Let us go and worship other gods’ (gods you have not known), then you must enquire, probe and investigate it thoroughly. And if it is true and it has been proved that this detestable thing has been done among you, you must certainly put to the sword all who live in that town. You must destroy it completely, both its people and its livestock. You are to gather all the plunder of the town into the middle of the public square and completely burn the town and all its plunder as a whole burnt offering to the Lord your God. That town is to remain a ruin for ever, never to be rebuilt, and none of the condemned things are to be found in your hands. Then the Lord will turn from his fierce anger, will show you mercy, and will have compassion on you. He will increase your numbers, as he promised on oath to your ancestors – because you obey the Lord your God by keeping all his commands that I am giving you today and doing what is right in his eyes."
>- Deuteronomy 13:12-18
Well faggot? We're waiting.
>>5477470
>according to most scholars
That means literally nothing. Every theologian starts at a point and attempts to rationalize text to justify their own viewpoint.
It's the reason 500 years ago few people questioned the morality of slavery and now 99% of "Biblical scholars" think it's abundantly apparent how Jesus' teachings contradict with slavery.
>>5477578
It seems like that word refers to a male prostitute/sex slave rather than an homosexual act.
>>5477570
>Bad experiences from individuals you believe represent a nebulous group doesn't justify hatred of said nebulous group.
It's not 'bad experiences from individuals' when it's church sanctioned persecution.
It's only reasonable that people are wary if not outright distrustful of that same organisation that still considers them lesser humans.
>>5477578
>he thinks he's teaching me something
I struggled for a decade with reconciling my homosexuality with my deep Christian conviction. There's likely no argument you could use that I haven't seen spelled out in greater detail by people who know more about it than you do.
The fact is that when people other than Paul use the word in other texts, it's not somehow magically less a compound of the levitical terms, and yet it still doesn't fucking mean "man who has sex with men".
Not to mention that anons in this thread have already pointed out that the original Levitical law probably doesn't simply condemn gay sex, but the specific type of pederastic temple prostitution that was common practice.
>>5477578
Why should the Greek translation of Hebrew be better than a direct one?
>>5477608
Christianity isn't a fucking "organisation" you Eurotard. People have ill feelings toward the Catholic Church or the Southern Baptist Convention? Perfectly acceptable. People have ill feelings toward Presbyterians, United Methodist, Unitarian Universalists, many Northern Baptists, many Lutherans, Episcopalians and any of the other myriad of gay-affirming denominations? That isn't justified or reasonable. Being against a whole faith because a percentage of it has discriminated against you/continues to is unreasonable.
>>5477570
A church is not a nebulous group. It's an entity with institutional and ritual power within the community it's in.
>>5477629
I'm the one arguing against him, but his point was that the Greek translation is the one Paul would have read/his readers would have been familiar with.
>>5477630
Lutheran churches are mostly not gay affirming, neither are presbyterians.
>>5477633
>Christianity
>'A church'
You honestly don't see how flawed your argument is?
>>5477637
/polgbt/ here. Paul who read greek apparently fell for Jewish schemes. That would be my argument.
>>5477589
>That means literally nothing.
What it means is that many people throughout the centuries reached the same conclusion.
A conclusion that with this very issue leaves little room for their own viewpoint.
It's a passage where Jesus refers to sexual immorality without telling which.
So it's not illogical to assume it's a list most people at that time in that area knew about, which was Leviticus.
>It's the reason 500 years ago few people questioned the morality of slavery and now 99% of "Biblical scholars" think it's abundantly apparent how Jesus' teachings contradict with slavery.
And how much of that is social pandering, and how would that differ from the "Jesus was totally ok with gays guys"?
>>5477643
The largest Presbyterian organization in the US affirms gay clergy, m8. Lutherans are pretty split down the middle, which is why I said "many", not "most"
>>5477598
>this argument again
No it does not.
>>5477657
Theology is still scholastics. Many people have reached many positions by twisting words their way.
>>5477657
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FaCHBmGWcBc
I appeal to Natural Universal Law.
Faggot Seals and other animals exist as faggot.
Prostate can cause ejaculation.
Faggots exist in any kind of oppressive state.
I have more evidence in Gods creation that Faggotry is normal vs. a poorly translated hand me down text with endless edits.
>>5477665
Yes it does.
>>5477610
>Not to mention that anons in this thread have already pointed out that the original Levitical law probably doesn't simply condemn gay sex, but the specific type of pederastic temple prostitution that was common practice.
And the very next fucking passage in Leviticus is about bestiality.
Also related to temple prostitution?
No.
There's literally no indication that the gay passage in leviticus has somethin to do with temple protsitution.
That's just what apologetics like you make out of it to sustain your own worldview.
Pitiful, but understandable.
>>5477656
Paul was Jew and identiifed as such until he died you idiot. Early Christians didn't see the two faiths as mutually exclusive.
>>5477657
>What it means is that many people throughout the centuries reached the same conclusion.
Just like many of scholars throughout the centuries reached the same viewpoint of slavery.
>how much of that is social pandering
Or maybe it's the SPIRIT of the word rather than literally reading it? DO you know what in Acts the apostles did when they needed to decide what to do and what was right? They discussed it, debated it, and PRAYED. They referenced their holy texts, but they did not rely on them as some sort of transcript to take every word word-for-word.
Again, considering there was absolutely no concept of homosexuality or "gay" in the past, that people might just naturally be one way or another, it's retarded to believe Jesus said ANYTHING on the matter.
>>5477691
So you fell for the Kike scheme?
>>5477676
>Many people have reached many positions by twisting words their way.
I ain't denying that.
But the fact that many reach the same conclusion independant of each other, thoughout the years speaks with more merit than an anonymous discussion on a Chinese imageboard.
>>5477686
So you're either a fedora-tier gay person trying to enlighten people who actually identify as Christians by explaining their faith to them as if they're infants, or you're an actual Christian Conservative who has gone to a gay board to tell them they're all going to hell.
The fact that you're one of those and have the gall to call anyone else pathetic is funny.
Some people take the Bible word-for-word literal, and many others do not.
>>5477679
>I appeal to Natural Universal Law.
If you insist.
I'm just here arguing that the bible is clear on this issue and has been so until suddenly gay rights started to matter.
>>5477694
Yes, I love Jews and I love to suck fat circumcized Jew cock and I love to be cucked by black men. I shill for the Jews constantly and love my Jewish masters. Good goy good goy LOL xD
>>5477683
No it doesn't.
>>5477712
>I'm just here arguing that the bible is clear on this issue and has been so until suddenly gay rights started to matter.
It literally isn't. There are 6 passages, 3 of which are irrelevant under the new covenant and 3 are ambiguous at best. Even your best argument for the definition of αρσενοkοιτια was "it's pretty reasonable for people at that time to know it was a reference to Leviticus" which still admits a degree of doubt.
Not to mention that ignores people who don't take the Bible literally, which up until recently was most people including fucking Augustine.
>>5477717
Yes it is, pic related, checkmate atheists.
>>5477691
>Just like many of scholars throughout the centuries reached the same viewpoint of slavery.
Which means that saying "the bible condones slavery" holds merit.
>Or maybe it's the SPIRIT of the word rather than literally reading it?
The fact that only now, when gay rights are becoming more mainstream in the west and the church has been called out on their stance, that just recently all these gay friendly interpretations came forth should speak about how reliable and honest they actually are.
>Again, considering there was absolutely no concept of homosexuality or "gay" in the past, that people might just naturally be one way or another, it's retarded to believe Jesus said ANYTHING on the matter.
MSM is an observable thing, otherwise there wouldn't be laws about it. Just because they didn't know the underlying mechanics doesn't mean they couldn't have an opinion on what they observed.
Now with the recent advances on homosexual science it's logical that the church "changes" their stance with the 'just stay celibate', but considering that Jesus pulled the line from actions to thoughts nothing has really changed.
>>5477723
>Even your best argument for the definition of αρσενοkοιτια was "it's pretty reasonable for people at that time to know it was a reference to Leviticus" which still admits a degree of doubt.
That's not the argument. The reference to Leviticus is about Jesus his words when he spoke about sexual immorality using the word porneiai (plural). Since he doesn't mention which immoral acts it's reasonable to assume he refers to an already known list, Leviticus.
The argument about αρσενοkοιτια is about Paul's description of what was apparently ill defined, but as the image here>>5477578
said, literally translates to "male/ a male" and "for sexual intercourse/in sexual intercourse".
Not a translation that casts doubt on the meaning.
>>5477749
So then you're just going to ignore the spiritual approach, right? So we can stop this silly debate because you refuse to acknowledge that the tool most churches use above all else, prayer, to understand the meaning of passages, makes it valid reasoning for a Church's change in stance, right?
I just find it incredibly silly that you're an apparent outsider shouting at Christians "YOU DON'T KNOW YOUR OWN RELIGION". Quakers were anti-slavery literal centuries before it was mainstream to be so because they valued the spirit of the word over the literal text of it. To say that this is an invalid version of Christianity just seems absurd to me.
>>5477736
Jabba dies in a scene of female empowerment.
Feminism: 1
Jabba: 0
>>5477762
>Not a translation that casts doubt on the meaning
When other people use the same exact word in the same time period in other texts and it doesn't mean "men who have sex with men", then it is very much ambiguous. We're just going around in circles now.
>>5477763
>the tool most churches use above all else, prayer, to understand the meaning of passages
A meaning that has been debated many, many times.
A meaning that people tried to discover through prayer many, many times.
A meaning that only relatively recently changed.
And wasn't God's word eternal and unchanging?
>>5477767
Jabba is actually an hermaphrodite.
>>5477768
>When other people use the same exact word in the same time period in other texts and it doesn't mean "men who have sex with men", then it is very much ambiguous.
Paul practically invented that word.
>>5477782
>And wasn't God's word eternal and unchanging?
Yes, and as humans gain more scientific and philosophical knowledge, we gain more context to view God's word and work a little bit closer to what He really means. This is the theological approach that most Rabbis and basically all more liberal protestants take.
If you think that's an invalid way to practice religion, that's fine. But I for hte life of me don't know why you'd think that unless you're a fundamental Christian yourself.
>>5477787
But he uses male pronouns.
>>5477795
Right. So then why aren't all of the subsequent usages following his supposed definition? Why did John the Faster use it to describe sex between a man and his wife?
>>5477825
Hutts choose a gender to identify with but they're still all hermaphrodites like earthworms.
>>5477795
So basically Paul invented a word to bully fagets. He sounds like an asshole.
>>5477825
Does he? Do we even know enough about the language he uses to know if they even have pronouns at all? Does he even know people assumed he was a guy when in fact he doesn't speak the common language?
>>5477833
>So basically Paul invented a word to bully fagets. He sounds like an asshole.
I find it really weird that Christian Fundamentalists believe that this guy's letters to churches are the literal word of God. Could you imagine if you just wrote emails to your co-workers and a few hundred years later a council decided your emails were divine and God's message directly from Him? It's beyond absurd. Paul certainly didn't write them with that in mind.
>>5477853
What if he wrote them to shitpost?
>>5477833
Huttese uses gender.
>>5476571
>now that I think of it hardly anyone has ever understood the fact, that I envy religious people. religion would have given me so much as a person, especially as a youth, but my mind just can't believe.
there are religions out there that can give you more than christianity and does not want you believe in pink unicorns.
>>5477871
The greatest shitposts of all time.
>>5477828
>So then why aren't all of the subsequent usages following his supposed definition?
For the same reason other people use words incorrectly to describe things.
Let's not forget that Paul was well versed in the Greek language where others might not have been.
One of the reasons all these tumblr sexualities don't make sense.
>>5477886
What if thousands of years from now, the various shitposts over the internet turn into different religions?
>>5477892
The word appears 77 times in the known Greek Lexicon. It's never used to describe male-on-male sex in any of those other times. Are you telling me none of those people writing in Greek fucking knew the language?
>>5477897
>The day memes become real
It will be beautiful, anon.
>>5477853
>I find it really weird that Christian Fundamentalists believe that this guy's letters to churches are the literal word of God.
Well to be fair Paul is an apostle appointed by Jesus Christ himself and serves as His ambassador.
So if it were his honest personal opinion then he sure fucked up a lot by not putting a disclaimer up front.
>>5477903
>Are you telling me none of those people writing in Greek fucking knew the language?
Not the Greek dialect Paul wrote in.
Or at least didn't understand it the same way he did.
>>5470074
>"Do not practice homosexuality, having sex with another man as with a woman. It is a detestable sin."
>having sex with another man as with a woman
Okay fags, religion states bottoming is fine, everyone go home.
>>5477913
>Paul is an apostle appointed by Jesus Christ himself and serves as His ambassador.
Paul never met Jesus and was converted after Christ's death. He's as much appointed by Christ as any pastor who claims he's been called to preach is.
>not putting a disclaimer up front
Why would anyone have the foresight to say "Do not use this letter in your holy book as the literal Word of God"? Even if Paul thought his words were divinely inspired, he certainly didn't intend for each sentence to be broken up and analyzed word-for-word in a foreign language. It's unreasonable to imagine that as his intent, or as God's intent, and yet that's exactly what fundamentalists do.
>>5477924
>Even 2 out of 77 of these usages have a different meaning because Paul was smarter and speaking a different dialect
Who's grasping at straws now? It seems very unlikely that none of those other 75 times were written A. in ionic greek and B. by deeply another learned Christian scholar.
>>5470074
"'If a man has sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable..." - Leviticus 20:13
This is just good advice. If you try to fuck a guy like you fuck a girl you're going to injure him. Try to put it in the front? When are you going to put it? In the urethra?
"...their blood will be on their own heads." - Leviticus 20:13
See what I mean?
You have to fuck other dudes in the ass as god intended. For Christ's sake.
>>5477975
>Paul never met Jesus and was converted after Christ's death. He's as much appointed by Christ as any pastor who claims he's been called to preach is.
Reality wise, yes. The biblical way, no. In the bible he has too much significance to be considered 'just someone who converted'.
>Even if Paul thought his words were divinely inspired, he certainly didn't intend for each sentence to be broken up and analyzed word-for-word in a foreign language. It's unreasonable to imagine that as his intent.
So if his meaning couldn't be to deeply analise his words and get a meaning out of it, then it's weird to assume any passage about msm in the bible are about temple prostitution or anything else that requires in dept analysis.
Because that couldn't have been his intention, right?
>Who's grasping at straws now? It seems very unlikely that none of those other 75 times were written A. in ionic greek and B. by deeply another learned Christian scholar.
We're talking about a made up neologism that is subject to both difference in dialect and the living breathing entity that is language, and finally, is just the fusion of 2 words that were written next to each other.
Sure you can call that 'grasping at straws' if you're so desperate to refute my point about Paul simply being quite clear on his stance about homosexuals, but what does it get you?
>>5478090
>Because that couldn't have been his intention, right?
Not if that's the more likely thing he's talking about, which is the whole argument, m80. Jewish theologians alive AT THE TIME OF CHRIST like Philo wrote extensively on how Leviticus refers to temple prostitution. You are assuming "men who have sex with men" is the most reasonable answer based on your modern lens, but your'e ignoring the context of an ancient culture where deviant behavior was almost always linked to some sort of pagan ritualism. When there are stories like David and Jonathan that discuss the great love between two men, I find it hard to believe that the Bible, even taken literally (which I don't believe it should be) condemns the completely new notion of homosexuality as a scientific and natural occurrence and the pair bonding of two homosexual males in love.
>what does it get you?
Peace of mind for many gay people who struggle with their faith and their sexuality, which I find particularly important in regard to teenagers who might otherwise resort to self-harm.
What does it get YOU, anon, to convince people that the Bible unequivocally condemns gay sex? Are you trying to convince gays to abandon their faith and turn to atheism or are you trying to convince gays to repent or burn in hell? At least I understand the second one. The former just sounds retarded.
>>5478134
>temple prostitution
That's something with no evidence.
Literally after the sex with men Leviticus is talking about bestiality. Is that also related solely to temple prostitution?
No. That wouldn't make sense. So why would the very passage just before that one solely refer to temple prostitution?
And if it were, WHY does it take 2000 years to correct one tiny mistake?
>When there are stories like David and Jonathan that discuss the great love between two men
That could easily be discarded as being platonic. And even if it were homosexual, there's nothing written about homosexual acts.
>I find it hard to believe that the Bible, even taken literally (which I don't believe it should be) condemns the completely new notion of homosexuality as a scientific and natural occurrence and the pair bonding of two homosexual males in love.
Only till recently it was considered a mental illness. Before that it was a deliberate choice to 'go against god's ways'.
What the bible condemns is intercourse between 2 men, nothing about the scientific trouble behind homosexuality, just the mere act. It does not speak about condemning love.
And why would the bible not condemn these acts? There are many things condemned in the bible we'd find odd today but were common back then and vice versa.
>What does it get YOU, anon, to convince people that the Bible unequivocally condemns gay sex?
Knowledge of the truth. What gay people do with that knowledge that's their choice to make. But I want them to know the truth about what the bible tells us, not some dreamy lie that on the long run can't be defended.
And let's be honest here, it is really a risk worth taking?
Eventually one has to stand before God. Would one rather stand there with honesty in his heart, or doubt?
>>5478212
>And let's be honest here, it is really a risk worth taking?
>Eventually one has to stand before God. Would one rather stand there with honesty in his heart, or doubt?
Pretty much everyone violates some part of Leviticus or another, you'd need to do a lot more than just give up gay sex to get into heaven, if Leviticus really describes what one must do to live a sin-free life. Even if homosexuality is a sin that will keep you out of heaven, it doesn't seem like such a big deal when almost everyone else isn't getting in either.
>>5470074
> Taking ancient Rome's Judaism fanfiction seriously
Seriously? Religious fanfiction is cool and all but um it's make-believe.
>>5477924
>the greek dialect Paul wrote in
You mean mangled hebrew greek? That's like asking a Brooklyn jew questions about english grammar.
>>5478134
Good luck but you're not going to convince someone arguing the christian apologetics position with Philo. 1st century jewish theology only exists to them as a cute way to prove their religion is the one true religion after all.
>>5472168
Wish /pol/ would read this
>>5478212
>No. That wouldn't make sense.
You keep saying that as if it's self-evident and I should just accept it as superior logic, but I honestly don't know what bestiality being mentioned second has to do with it. Considering sex with animals was also associated with pagan ritualism, it's really a nonsense argument.
>is it really a risk worth taking?
If God would condemn me for following my natural tendency to fall in love with men than women, then I'd rather go to hell tbqh senpai.
>>5478212
>it is really a risk worth taking?
Is it really worth not submitting to Allah?
>>5478212
>And let's be honest here, it is really a risk worth taking?
Pascal's wager, kek, talk about desperately trying to reconcile your beliefs with something approximating logic.
>>5475364
1 Samuel 20:30: "Saul's anger flared up at Jonathan and he said to him, "You son of a perverse and rebellious woman! Don't I know that you have sided with the son of Jesse to your own shame and to the shame of the mother who bore you?"
Don't give me that agape bullshit.
>>5479492
I'm not a bible expert but I think if he's still being called Saul in that passage he's not converted to the Jesus cult yet.
>>5479543
This is part of the Hebrew Bible/Christian Old Testament, about 3000 years before Jesus' birth
>>5479772
>3000 years before Jesus' birth
lol no, anon. About 3000 years before NOW.
>>5482330
Well considering that Jesus was never born, he's technically correct. I mean, Jesus was born whenever some liar says he's born, and since one lie is just as worthless as another, it might as well be my lie that counts. And I say he will be born in 3...2...1...now. He was born just then.
