Using the rhetoric of the First Amendment, a string of US Supreme Court cases has allowed members of some religious groups to limit the freedoms of other Americans.
Similar background, but I was always strongly encouraged to read scripture myself. When I started pointing out how the scripture was pretty clearly in opposition to most popular Christian dogmas, it wasn’t the dogmas that were seen as the problem, it was ME for pointing them out.
Scripture is pro-abortion, it does not condemn homosexuality in any way, it does not contain even the concept of hell, nor does it does not support the concept of heaven as an afterlife destination; but it does demand you always treat others with respect and dignity (even your mortal enemies!) and that you worry about your own failings rather than others. You are to live by example, not edict or meddling.
Modern “Christians” are not followers of Christ, but enemies. They spit on his teachings and the scriptures. They are an army of anti-christ cultists.
“And I will tell them bluntly: You were never one of mine. Get out of here, you criminal trash.” - Matthew 7:23
It feels like Christians are anti-christian, as if a hate demon infiltrated and corrupted thier own faith. Does all organized faith end up this way? Or has always been this way from a deceitful inception.
It does not. Now, generally when someone online pushes back on this statement they fall into one of two buckets… those who think of themselves as Christian and push back defensively, or those who despise Christians and push back because most Christians espouse this lie. I won’t assume either, but I will set the record straight because that dogma is NOT scriptural and that dogged, deliberate lie needs to be put to an end. Feel free to ask questions if you want.
You mentioned both the Old and Testaments… since Paul’s greek statement in the “New Testament” (“male-bedder”) follows the phrasing of the Old (LXX), I’ll explain that one (because Paul’s word choice means he was citing Deuteronomy).
Leviticus 18:22 NKJV: “You shall not lie with a male as with a woman. It is an abomination.”
First, that is actually a fairly accurate translation (especially for the NKJV), so there’s no need to dig too into Hebrew or Greek in this case… just a grammar and a bit of historical context.
Jewish scholars hold a doctrine that scripture does not waste words. This isn’t necessarily pivotal here, but it’s a good entrypoint for this exercise.
The phrase “You shall not lie with a male” would be perfectly clear on it’s own… and yet that is not actually what it says… so why does scripture include the qualifier “as with a woman”?
Before you read on, think about that. What is the specific difference between “lie with a male” and “as with a women” that scripture is trying to clarify?
Now, we don’t have to guess at this. It’s not a mystery, and it never has been.
The word “woman” here (issah) is also the word for “wife”. It does double-duty… based on context. In this context, it’s a deliberate choice that carries both meanings simultaneously
The year is 2,000 BCE… you are a young man and you want/need a wife. How do you get one?
You buy her. You buy her from whoever owns her. Often, that is her family (well, her father, specifically)… but not always. A man who owns slaves can have sex with any woman he owns… but according to Jewish law, he would need to marry her. She doesn’t have a choice in the matter.
Are you seeing where this is going? Men can be property, but they are not to be made subservient to their owners in the same way women are.
Using modern terminology, the way we’d phrase Leviticus 18:22 is “You may not rape your male slaves as you do with your female slaves.”
Yes, by modern standards all this is gut-churningly awful. But these writings were not made us - they were written by and for ancient ethnic and religious Jews living thousands and thousands of years ago, raised in cultures that would be alien and barbaric to us now. When you keep the context in mind, most (not just much - most) scripture is abundantly clear… not just on the WHAT… but the WHY.
I do not disagree. But I also like to remind people that “The Bible” isn’t a singular work. It’s a collection of many historical texts by many people over from many different cultures and regions and situations covering a wide variety of topics.
I think there are valuable philosophies to gained, but there are certain things you can point to as “foundational” - and no matter what you are reading you always have to go back to those foundational concepts. Those are:
The Noachide Laws
The Teachings of Yeshua
The Noachide Laws essentially boil down to:
False Gods: Don’t worship inanimate objects.
Blasphemy: If YHWH reveals themself to you, remain reverent.
Murder: Do not kill unless there is no other choice.
Dangerous Sexual Behavior: Rape, incest, promiscuity; selfish behaviors that place others at risk.
Theft: Do not steal.
Animal Cruelty: Treat animals humanely, particularly those used for food.
Justice: Establish and maintain courts and systems of justice.
The Teachings of Yeshua boil down to:
Always show YHWH love, respect, reverence, and deference.
Always treat others with love, respect, reverence, and deference… even actual enemies.
Worry about your own shortcomings, not others.
2 & 3 are the outcomes of #1, and #1 is the outcome of 2 & 3. They are inextricably linked.
Everything else should be taken a historical document, not an universal omnicontextual moral precept; Yeshua states as much more than once. You do not need to be religious at all to find philosophical value in the foundations… and as far as the scripture is concerned, that is perfectly fine.
You mentioned both the Old and Testaments… since Paul’s greek statement in the “New Testament” (“male-bedder”) follows the phrasing of the Old (LXX), I’ll explain that one (because Paul’s word choice means he was citing Deuteronomy).
If Paul cities the old testament you explained, then him not using “as with a women” - since scripture doesn’t waste words - means these are two different (negative) statements about homosexuality.
Leviticus 18:22 NKJV: “You shall not lie with a male as with a woman. It is an abomination.”
What you left out, is the part where it says both shall be killed.
Men can be property, but they are not to be made subservient to their owners in the same way women are.
Using modern terminology, the way we’d phrase Leviticus 18:22 is “You may not rape your male slaves as you do with your female slaves.”
Ok, so in that case, what’s the male slave to do?
He cannot disobey his master, as the bible tells that he should always obey him.
But, if he is raped, he will be killed.
That doesn’t seem very fair, or even neutral about homosexuality. It’s negative.
But these writings were not made us - they were written by and for ancient ethnic and religious Jews living thousands and thousands of years ago, raised in cultures that would be alien and barbaric to us now.
In that case, what about the part in the new testament?
That was supposedly written for us, right? It doesn’t use the “as with a woman” phrasing.
Yet it also clearly has negative things to say about homosexuality.
What you left out, is the part where it says both shall be killed.
Because that’s not relevant to the discussion. But since you brought it up, remember that I explicitly mentioned that the context is “cultures that would be alien and barbaric to us now.” So let’s keep that context in mind. Chattel slavery was normal.
So, what is punishment for having sex with an animal? A slave is like an animal. It has been made unclean and unfit. But in this case there is a very specific prophetic context that we’ll touch on shortly.
Since we’re on the topic of familial/household abuses, note that the concept of “consent” does not exist here. Re-read Leviticus with that in mind, especially when reading about having sex with the neighbors wife, the daughter-in-law, or the father’s wife (which is not necessarily your mother). Consent is not a prerequisite to any of these offenses.
Now also remember, I said these two things:
“…they were written by and for ancient ethnic and religious Jews…”
“When you keep the context in mind, most (not just much - most) scripture is abundantly clear… not just on the WHAT… but the WHY.”
One thing neither of us has addressed here is the WHY. You shifted from Lev 23 to 20, but missed this: the scripture spells that out the WHY clear as day just a few verses later…
“Therefore you shall observe and obey all of my rules and all of my rulings so that the land where I am bringing you to live will not spit you back out.”
YHWH/God is not arbitrary, I think there’s a good chance we can agree on that. So, YHWH placed a specific context on these rulings and edicts… the preservation of the Israelites, YHWH’s own people, during their wanderings after exodus from Egypt.
Ok, so in that case, what’s the male slave to do?
He cannot disobey his master, as the bible tells that he should always obey him.
But, if he is raped, he will be killed.
That doesn’t seem very fair, or even neutral about homosexuality. It’s negative.
Yes, you got all of this right. Again, the slave is chattel and is handled like any other property. By modern sensibilities this is horrific, but this is a historical document that is not by, for, or about us (westerners living thousands of years later in an unimaginably different world and culture). You must consider the original intended purpose of the command within it’s own context, you cannot remove it from that context without fundamentally changing both it’s meaning and purpose, which is what modern Christianity has done.
In that case, what about the part in the new testament?
That was supposedly written for us, right? It doesn’t use the “as with a woman” phrasing.
Yet it also clearly has negative things to say about homosexuality.
Paul was a rabbi of the Pharisaic school, of which Jesus/Yeshua was also a member. His statements do not modify or supercede the Torah or the teachings of Jesus, but merely reiterate them. Paul was further challenged by working with Hellenists… yet another culture that would be alien to us, and decried a wide variety of activities he saw as sexual abuses; from temple prostitution, to slave abuse, to pederasty. And note that he did not demand that anyone engaging in those things be “put to death” - but to change their ways.
Now, remember this, because it is VITAL:
The Pharisees, having heard how Yeshua humbled the Sadducees (priestly caste), gathered together. One among them, an expert and lawyer of Torah (religious law) sought to test him.
“Rabbi, in all the Torah, which commandment is the most important?”
And Yeshua said to him: "You shall love, respect, and cherish the Lord, your God, with all your heart, with all your being, and all your thought. This is the most important and fundamental commandment.
But the second is equal to the first: You shall love, respect, and cherish your neighbors no less than you love, respect, and cherish yourself.
These two commandments are the foundation on which all the Torah and all the teachings of the Prophets are based.
Whenever you read scripture - any of it, even Paul - and even if you ignore all the other teachings of Yeshua Hamashiach, remember this one and contemplate what it means for all other teaching before or after Yeshua’s ministry.
It is relevant to the discussion. Because it shows that the old testament thinks homosexuality is bad, which you deny.
So, what is punishment for having sex with an animal? A slave is like an animal. It has been made unclean and unfit.
You’re not really making the case for a loving god and bible here.
What you have made the case for however, is that the bible views homosexuals as animals, as lesser than people.
All the while, you claim that the bible doesn’t save negative things about homosexuality.
YHWH/God is not arbitrary, I think there’s a good chance we can agree on that.
If you think so, you clearly haven’t read the bible, at all.
So, YHWH placed a specific context on these rulings and edicts… the preservation of the Israelites, YHWH’s own people, during their wanderings after exodus from Egypt.
And it was paramount that all homosexuals be killed, to safeguard these wanderings.
You must consider the original intended purpose of the command within it’s own context, you cannot remove it from that context without fundamentally changing both it’s meaning and purpose, which is what modern Christianity has done.
You can shift and twist the context all you like, it’s there clear as day: the bible says a lot of negative things about homosexuals.
Paul was a rabbi of the Pharisaic school, of which Jesus/Yeshua was also a member. His statements do not modify or supercede the Torah or the teachings of Jesus, but merely reiterate them.
Reiterate them? So the parts about slavery being completely ok and fine is jesus’ teaching reiterated?
Good to know. Everybody sets him up as a swell guy and a hippy, but it turns out he supports slavery.
And note that he did not demand that anyone engaging in those things be “put to death” - but to change their ways.
Which again, show that homosexuality was put in a negative light. According to the bible, it’s a sin that must be changed.
It explicitly says homosexuals cannot get into heaven, after all.
remember this one and contemplate what it means for all other teaching before or after Yeshua’s ministry.
Thatfully, I don’t have to go to ministrations or read of bigoted supernatural tales to delude myself into thinking I’m a good man, so I’ll skip that, thanks.
This just shows how Christians pick and choose which hills they will die on from the Bible based on their feelings rather than actually being steadfast in their dedication to scripture
Similar background, but I was always strongly encouraged to read scripture myself. When I started pointing out how the scripture was pretty clearly in opposition to most popular Christian dogmas, it wasn’t the dogmas that were seen as the problem, it was ME for pointing them out.
Scripture is pro-abortion, it does not condemn homosexuality in any way, it does not contain even the concept of hell, nor does it does not support the concept of heaven as an afterlife destination; but it does demand you always treat others with respect and dignity (even your mortal enemies!) and that you worry about your own failings rather than others. You are to live by example, not edict or meddling.
Modern “Christians” are not followers of Christ, but enemies. They spit on his teachings and the scriptures. They are an army of anti-christ cultists.
“And I will tell them bluntly: You were never one of mine. Get out of here, you criminal trash.” - Matthew 7:23
That was growing up on Judaism. Those things weren’t even a conversation.
It feels like Christians are anti-christian, as if a hate demon infiltrated and corrupted thier own faith. Does all organized faith end up this way? Or has always been this way from a deceitful inception.
That’s not true though.
It condemns homosexuality both in the old and new testaments.
It does not. Now, generally when someone online pushes back on this statement they fall into one of two buckets… those who think of themselves as Christian and push back defensively, or those who despise Christians and push back because most Christians espouse this lie. I won’t assume either, but I will set the record straight because that dogma is NOT scriptural and that dogged, deliberate lie needs to be put to an end. Feel free to ask questions if you want.
You mentioned both the Old and Testaments… since Paul’s greek statement in the “New Testament” (“male-bedder”) follows the phrasing of the Old (LXX), I’ll explain that one (because Paul’s word choice means he was citing Deuteronomy).
Leviticus 18:22 NKJV: “You shall not lie with a male as with a woman. It is an abomination.”
First, that is actually a fairly accurate translation (especially for the NKJV), so there’s no need to dig too into Hebrew or Greek in this case… just a grammar and a bit of historical context.
Jewish scholars hold a doctrine that scripture does not waste words. This isn’t necessarily pivotal here, but it’s a good entrypoint for this exercise.
The phrase “You shall not lie with a male” would be perfectly clear on it’s own… and yet that is not actually what it says… so why does scripture include the qualifier “as with a woman”?
Before you read on, think about that. What is the specific difference between “lie with a male” and “as with a women” that scripture is trying to clarify?
Now, we don’t have to guess at this. It’s not a mystery, and it never has been.
The word “woman” here (issah) is also the word for “wife”. It does double-duty… based on context. In this context, it’s a deliberate choice that carries both meanings simultaneously
The year is 2,000 BCE… you are a young man and you want/need a wife. How do you get one?
You buy her. You buy her from whoever owns her. Often, that is her family (well, her father, specifically)… but not always. A man who owns slaves can have sex with any woman he owns… but according to Jewish law, he would need to marry her. She doesn’t have a choice in the matter.
Are you seeing where this is going? Men can be property, but they are not to be made subservient to their owners in the same way women are.
Using modern terminology, the way we’d phrase Leviticus 18:22 is “You may not rape your male slaves as you do with your female slaves.”
Yes, by modern standards all this is gut-churningly awful. But these writings were not made us - they were written by and for ancient ethnic and religious Jews living thousands and thousands of years ago, raised in cultures that would be alien and barbaric to us now. When you keep the context in mind, most (not just much - most) scripture is abundantly clear… not just on the WHAT… but the WHY.
But at this point, the conclusion of either interpretation should be the same:
The Bible is not a workable moral guideline for modern life.
Neither “Thou shall not sleep with men like you would with women” nor “Thou shall not rape men like you would women” are acceptable.
I do not disagree. But I also like to remind people that “The Bible” isn’t a singular work. It’s a collection of many historical texts by many people over from many different cultures and regions and situations covering a wide variety of topics.
I think there are valuable philosophies to gained, but there are certain things you can point to as “foundational” - and no matter what you are reading you always have to go back to those foundational concepts. Those are:
The Noachide Laws essentially boil down to:
The Teachings of Yeshua boil down to:
Everything else should be taken a historical document, not an universal omnicontextual moral precept; Yeshua states as much more than once. You do not need to be religious at all to find philosophical value in the foundations… and as far as the scripture is concerned, that is perfectly fine.
It does.
If Paul cities the old testament you explained, then him not using “as with a women” - since scripture doesn’t waste words - means these are two different (negative) statements about homosexuality.
What you left out, is the part where it says both shall be killed.
Ok, so in that case, what’s the male slave to do?
He cannot disobey his master, as the bible tells that he should always obey him.
But, if he is raped, he will be killed.
That doesn’t seem very fair, or even neutral about homosexuality. It’s negative.
In that case, what about the part in the new testament?
That was supposedly written for us, right? It doesn’t use the “as with a woman” phrasing.
Yet it also clearly has negative things to say about homosexuality.
Because that’s not relevant to the discussion. But since you brought it up, remember that I explicitly mentioned that the context is “cultures that would be alien and barbaric to us now.” So let’s keep that context in mind. Chattel slavery was normal.
So, what is punishment for having sex with an animal? A slave is like an animal. It has been made unclean and unfit. But in this case there is a very specific prophetic context that we’ll touch on shortly.
Since we’re on the topic of familial/household abuses, note that the concept of “consent” does not exist here. Re-read Leviticus with that in mind, especially when reading about having sex with the neighbors wife, the daughter-in-law, or the father’s wife (which is not necessarily your mother). Consent is not a prerequisite to any of these offenses.
Now also remember, I said these two things:
One thing neither of us has addressed here is the WHY. You shifted from Lev 23 to 20, but missed this: the scripture spells that out the WHY clear as day just a few verses later…
“Therefore you shall observe and obey all of my rules and all of my rulings so that the land where I am bringing you to live will not spit you back out.”
YHWH/God is not arbitrary, I think there’s a good chance we can agree on that. So, YHWH placed a specific context on these rulings and edicts… the preservation of the Israelites, YHWH’s own people, during their wanderings after exodus from Egypt.
Yes, you got all of this right. Again, the slave is chattel and is handled like any other property. By modern sensibilities this is horrific, but this is a historical document that is not by, for, or about us (westerners living thousands of years later in an unimaginably different world and culture). You must consider the original intended purpose of the command within it’s own context, you cannot remove it from that context without fundamentally changing both it’s meaning and purpose, which is what modern Christianity has done.
Paul was a rabbi of the Pharisaic school, of which Jesus/Yeshua was also a member. His statements do not modify or supercede the Torah or the teachings of Jesus, but merely reiterate them. Paul was further challenged by working with Hellenists… yet another culture that would be alien to us, and decried a wide variety of activities he saw as sexual abuses; from temple prostitution, to slave abuse, to pederasty. And note that he did not demand that anyone engaging in those things be “put to death” - but to change their ways.
Now, remember this, because it is VITAL:
Whenever you read scripture - any of it, even Paul - and even if you ignore all the other teachings of Yeshua Hamashiach, remember this one and contemplate what it means for all other teaching before or after Yeshua’s ministry.
It is relevant to the discussion. Because it shows that the old testament thinks homosexuality is bad, which you deny.
You’re not really making the case for a loving god and bible here.
What you have made the case for however, is that the bible views homosexuals as animals, as lesser than people.
All the while, you claim that the bible doesn’t save negative things about homosexuality.
If you think so, you clearly haven’t read the bible, at all.
And it was paramount that all homosexuals be killed, to safeguard these wanderings.
You can shift and twist the context all you like, it’s there clear as day: the bible says a lot of negative things about homosexuals.
Reiterate them? So the parts about slavery being completely ok and fine is jesus’ teaching reiterated?
Good to know. Everybody sets him up as a swell guy and a hippy, but it turns out he supports slavery.
Which again, show that homosexuality was put in a negative light. According to the bible, it’s a sin that must be changed.
It explicitly says homosexuals cannot get into heaven, after all.
Thatfully, I don’t have to go to ministrations or read of bigoted supernatural tales to delude myself into thinking I’m a good man, so I’ll skip that, thanks.
deleted by creator
Agreed.
I think you misunderstood. I’m not a christian criticizing atheism, I’m an atheist criticizing christianity.
I’m refuting the propaganda that the bible is actually a good book with good morals that some christians like to spread.
deleted by creator
This just shows how Christians pick and choose which hills they will die on from the Bible based on their feelings rather than actually being steadfast in their dedication to scripture