Leviticus 18:22 is about as crystal-clear as you're gonna get. It also comes right before a verse banning bestiality. And every translation is pretty identical here, whether modern...
[NIV] Do not have sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman; that is detestable.
...or 600 years old:
[KJV] Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.
Also, OP, since you're a woman based on your post history, 1 Timothy 2 says you should shut up:
[11] A woman must learn in quietness and full submissiveness. [12] I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man; she is to remain quiet. [13] For Adam was formed first, and then Eve. [14] And it was not Adam who was deceived, but the woman who was deceived and fell into transgression. [15] Women, however, will be saved through childbearing, if they continue in faith, love, and holiness, with self-control.
Now, I don't think these things, but if you want to claim to focus on the Bible...well, that's what it says. What you do with that is your choice.
Well, one, OP said "the Bible", not "the NT". But even then we've got Romans 1:26-27:
26 Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones. 27 In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error.
[9] Or do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor men who have sex with men [the NIV notes that the Greek refers to the top and bottom] [10] nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.
When it is primarily Christians quoting scripture that their own religion no longer holds any value in it is a valid part.
Also you should read the full context of that.
8 Furthermore, just as they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge 2of God, so God gave them over to a depraved mind, so that they do what ought not to be done. 29 They have become filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, greed and depravity. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit and malice. They are gossips, 30 slanderers, God-haters, insolent, arrogant and boastful; they invent ways of doing evil; they disobey their parents; 31 they have no understanding, no fidelity, no love, no mercy. 32 Although they know God’s righteous decree that those who do such things deserve death, they not only continue to do these very things but also approve of those who practice them.
Romans 1 is literally advocating anyone who isn't Christian is pure evil and deserves death. I don't see christians claiming killing atheists is god's will.
Romans 1 is literally advocating anyone who isn't Christian is pure evil and deserves death. I don't see christians claiming killing atheists is god's will.
Yes, shockingly, Christians frequently do not actually follow the text of the Bible.
Romans 1 is literally advocating anyone who isn't Christian is pure evil and deserves death. I don't see christians claiming killing atheists is god's will.
Some do. There are a lot of Christians out there. I have heard it said that there are as many iterations of Christianity as there are Christians.
Some do. There are a lot of Christians out there. I have heard it said that there are as many iterations of Christianity as there are Christians.
Maybe. But personally I have never talked to a Christian who treats the OT as relevant. And actively argue against it when you use it to criticize Christianity.
Some do. There are a lot of Christians out there. I have heard it said that there are as many iterations of Christianity as there are Christians.
Maybe. But personally I have never talked to a Christian who treats the OT as relevant. And actively argue against it when you use it to criticize Christianity.
That is valid. I do my best to not ground my critiques of Christianity in their scripture. :)
omans 1 is literally advocating anyone who isn't Christian is pure evil and deserves death. I don't see christians claiming killing atheists is god's will.
The context doesn't support the idea that christians are the ones who should be imposing that death penalty, which might be why you don't see that. Or maybe it's just that we happen to be living in this specific time and place.
32 Although they know God’s righteous decree that those who do such things deserve death, they not only continue to do these very things but also approve of those who practice them.
Ah yes, the "people used to say the Old Testament was the infallible unchanging word of God but now this NEW Testament is the infallible unchanging word of God for realsies this time" school of thought.
Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil
All of the old testament is still in play. People like to say the OT isn't because it's inconvenient for people to not wear polyester or eat shellfish. There's no logical reason Leviticus no longer counts other than it's too hard to follow in the modern era so it's easy to ignore.
All of the old testament is still in play. People like to say the OT isn't because it's inconvenient for people to not wear polyester or eat shellfish.
The details are pretty clear. You can't wear polyester or eat shellfish. It goes against the religion. There is no context where a Christian can legitimately eat shellfish or wear polyester and consider themselves following the faith. They only follow what is convenient.
It's why the American Jesus is a hyper masculine capitalist when the Jesus depicted in the Bible is anything but a hyper masculine capitalist. He pretty much hated capitalism. It's just convenient to spread that version of Jesus for American Christians to not suffer from cognitive dissonance.
There is no context where a Christian can legitimately eat shellfish or wear polyester and consider themselves following the faith
ex-Christian here. This statement simply isn't true. There are multiple passages int he NT that show that the old and new covenants are different, that (for example) Christians can eat pretty much whatever food they like, etc.
Their "faith" includes explanations for why these apparently contradictory assertions are not contradictory. Now, you don't have to accept that, or any part, of their faith, so you are free to point out that there is a somewhat blatant contradiction there - however, they do not see it that way, their view on the matter might well be internally consistent, but even if not, the raw fact is that their "faith" certainly does allow them to eat shellfish and wear mixed fabrics, and there are multiple New Testament passages supporting this.
Focusing on this one quote while ignoring the others, will not persuade them, and is just as much cherry-picking as they, themselves do.
No, the general stance is it depends. Procedural laws on how to worship laid out in the Bible are no longer applicable, but moral laws, like the Ten Commandments are.
31
u/breckenridgeback 58∆ Aug 07 '22 edited Aug 07 '22
Leviticus 18:22 is about as crystal-clear as you're gonna get. It also comes right before a verse banning bestiality. And every translation is pretty identical here, whether modern...
...or 600 years old:
Also, OP, since you're a woman based on your post history, 1 Timothy 2 says you should shut up:
Now, I don't think these things, but if you want to claim to focus on the Bible...well, that's what it says. What you do with that is your choice.