The Bible says homosexuals and adulturers
Should be executed we dont hear much about it from christians.
46-50, M
This page is a permanent link to the reply below and its nested replies. See all post replies »
@Pikachu You're trippin' homie. This verse has nothing to do with homosecuality. It says if a man LIES with a man, as in lies to him. See, we gotta bullshit these broads, but bullshitting another man is just wrong; you can't just lie to him like to do with a woman. It basically is saying "bros over hoes".
@Pikachu @Graylight I mean I think both of you have points that christian theologians still argue about. Ultimately Pikachu is correct; the bible does, at the end of the day have a commandment to execute homosexuals. Graylight is correct tho that through interpretations, you can easily justify not doing that. For instance. that commandment was for the law of the land at that time; the new Israel that in the context of the story moses was helping establish with God. I even believe within the greater context of mosaic law you would even take the accused homo to elders to determine guilt. It's not a commandment of God that if you're wondering through a foreign land and see gays, you must make sure they are stoned.
The New Testament justifications are weird. Jesus said he didn't come to abolish the law so that's a huge tool that torah people use. But then Paul the apostle had a ton of statements like "we are free from the bondage of the law" and such. I think tho in the book of acts the disciples agreed not to teach new Christians the law, and basically said just teach them not to drink blood, not to fornicate, and a few other things I forget.
The New Testament justifications are weird. Jesus said he didn't come to abolish the law so that's a huge tool that torah people use. But then Paul the apostle had a ton of statements like "we are free from the bondage of the law" and such. I think tho in the book of acts the disciples agreed not to teach new Christians the law, and basically said just teach them not to drink blood, not to fornicate, and a few other things I forget.
Graylight · 51-55, F
@BRUUH There was no word for 'homosexual' in the times the Bible was written. None. So the next best words were chosen, and unfortunately they're wrent correct at all. This much is understood by comparing older texts and languages. Additionally, it is only men who are mentioned in the Bible is passages people "think" prove their points. That's because there were no laws against homosexuality, there were admonitions that centered around hospitality and masculinity and society.
In the NT, virtually any reference comes for the letters of Paul, who stands on his own. Those were his beliefs, his writings, and even then they weren't about homosexuality.
In the NT, virtually any reference comes for the letters of Paul, who stands on his own. Those were his beliefs, his writings, and even then they weren't about homosexuality.
@Graylight
Maybe i would have phrased it more as "Actually that interpretation is debatable and here's why" rather than "You really need to know about this thing i know instead of citing a quote like dummy. Educate yourself."
Perhaps that was not your intent but that's how it came off.
Something to be mindful of in the future.
Maybe i would have phrased it more as "Actually that interpretation is debatable and here's why" rather than "You really need to know about this thing i know instead of citing a quote like dummy. Educate yourself."
Perhaps that was not your intent but that's how it came off.
Something to be mindful of in the future.
Graylight · 51-55, F
@Pikachu The data in not open to much interpretations, the evangelical interpretation is almost purely wrong and inherently hypocritical.
Anyone who launches neck deep into discussing a topic on which they show their naïveté does not earn respect. Poor study doesn't get you cuddles in school. It brings correction.
Anyone who launches neck deep into discussing a topic on which they show their naïveté does not earn respect. Poor study doesn't get you cuddles in school. It brings correction.
@Graylight
Look, no need to double down on why you think being rude is justified.
I'm just pointing out that there are less confrontational ways to correct a person.
Additionally, a more neutral correction is more likely to be met with an open mind while a confrontational or condescending correction is more likely to just cause the other person to dig in their heals.
Knowing the right answer is only half the equation. The other half is convincing people that you have the right answer. You catch more flies with honey than vinegar, as the saying goes.
But you do you.
Have a pleasant day✌️
Look, no need to double down on why you think being rude is justified.
I'm just pointing out that there are less confrontational ways to correct a person.
Additionally, a more neutral correction is more likely to be met with an open mind while a confrontational or condescending correction is more likely to just cause the other person to dig in their heals.
Knowing the right answer is only half the equation. The other half is convincing people that you have the right answer. You catch more flies with honey than vinegar, as the saying goes.
But you do you.
Have a pleasant day✌️