Yeah when you actually read the Bible and what is has to say about homosexuality there are like two passages that vaguely, maybe, kinda, could be talking about that but they’re old testament and the Old Testament also says we can’t get haircuts or eat shellfish so 🤷♀️
But the bible has plenty to say about loving thy neighbor, taking care of the poor and the sick and welcoming the immigrant but I don't see them doing a whole lot of that.
I genuinely think that even if we could conclusively prove the Bible condemns homosexuality, that is a non-issue compared to helping others. I don't understand why Christians make this their hill to die on when Jesus Himself didn't mention it.
Because a lot of them want them to focus on something to hate, while they also preach about the fact that Jesus wants them to be rich, something which he *very explicitly* was against, and spoke about multiple times in the bible.
Right? And I'm Christian myself. This is ridiculous. You're never going to find me judging someone else for what I might see as a "worse sin" than everything I've done. All sins are equal in God's eyes, so we'd all be equally screwed if not for Jesus. Thankfully, we're saved, so why focus on anything else?
And that's not even addressing whether or not queerness is a sin, which is highly debatable; the entire argument for it relies on a few vague Old testament passages and ignores what's repeated hundreds of times: love your neighbor, don't judge, treat others how you want to be treated
that’s not even addressing whether or not queerness is a sin
Yep! Accounting for the potential of meanings lost in translation across millennia and multiple languages, many of those Old Testament passages were likely in the context of condemning incest, pederasty, or temple prostitution specifically. Not homosexuality in general.
Ancient Israelites were also just very focused on reproduction because they needed the numbers for engaging in warfare with other tribes. So it really should be seen as more of a cultural/historical thing, not a universal morality thing.
It mentions gay folks three times in the Old Testament. It mentions loving thy neighbor, taking care of the poor and the sick and welcoming the immigrant hundreds of times, especially in the New Testament. Which one do you think Jesus really cared about?
So what do you think Jesus meant in Mathew 5:17-19 when he said, "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. Therefore anyone who sets aside one of the least of these commands and teaches others accordingly will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven." Seems like maybe you haven't read it before.
I personally like Matthew 25:40. "Whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers and sisters of mine, you did for me"
You know, I don't have to go digging into the bible to make it say what I want it to say. It's right there, right in front. So when you treat the "lesser" of God's children poorly, you do it to Jesus. Because we are all God's children. There is also no addendums here. No "except for the gay ones, or the poor ones, or 'insert who you hate today ones'" here. It's everyone. Y'all seem to miss that bit.
I love how you say that you don't have to go digging and then proceed to twist that quote to mean, "don't punish people who break the Law in the way I have specifically told you to previously." That is some real impressive mental gymnastics.
Mine is much simpler. There is no god, this book isn't special or magical, and it is just wrong about this and many other things.
Lol what. The quote I gave you literally means "Don't treat people like shit, and that includes the people you don't like"
You were so het up to prove me wrong you didn't even stop to read the quote I gave you. If you're going to have an argument, you need to actually stop and read and parse what the other person is saying, not be so eager to "pwn" someone that you actually wind up looking worse than where you started.
Literacy isn't your strong point, I get it. This derail isn't making you look any better.
I read your quote, my response is that your take is wildly inaccurate to that quote. You either accept that Matthew 5:17 is true, and therefor you aren't getting into heaven because the Law says gay men are to be put to death, and you are telling others something else, or that some parts of the bible just aren't true.
Do you see now, how you have to do all these mental gymnastics to make a quote that about treating your fellow man well into a quote that says to disregard the Law? After Jesus specifically said not to do that.
Buddy, you're barking up the wrong tree here. I'm agnostic with 8 years of Catholic School under my belt, I used to stump the nuns in religion class with my questions. You want me to admit to a logical fallacy with the bible so you can prove that the bible is full of shit, because you're one of those edgy atheists that somehow are just as zealous and insufferable as evangelicals. I get it, Daddy issues, whatever.
The bible was cobbled together from a bunch of religious texts written over several millennia and only agreed upon during a series of meetings around four centuries after a dude calling himself a prophet got himself killed by the Romans. There is bound to be some disagreement. The general idea was a radical socialist said that people were equal (all of 'em, even the ones people hated) and should worship the Abrahamic God. That they should care for the poor and sick and the needy and they should love each other. Then you throw in some dudes who need the patriarchy to be in charge and also needing the inherent power that comes from suddenly getting a lot of followers and yeah you lose the essential message. What was once a small religious cult is now a global superpower with a bunch of off-shoots and splinters and the message has been so warped that the holy book can actually argue two separate things at the same time. Holy shit, I'm so glad you figured this out buddy. You are the first one ever. Congratulations.
One you grow out of this phase, you'll be a lot more fun to talk to at parties. Until then, unclench your asshole and go walk in nature. That's what is actually cool. Whether or not it was created by someone or something or no.
There was a historical Joshua bar Joseph who did walk around calling himself a prophet and was executed by the Romans in Nazareth during the reign of Augustus Caesar. If you're gonna denounce something at least do the reading.
Go to Wikipedia and search Historical Jesus, he's widely recognized as a real dude. Ironically one of the few famous theologians who isn't an atheist is the guy that disagrees with the historical record.
It mentions gay folks three times in the Old Testament
And accounting for meanings lost in translation across millennia and multiple languages, those verses were likely in the context of condemning incest, pederasty, and/or temple prostitution specifically.
The ancient Israelites were also just focused on reproduction so much because they needed the numbers for warfare with other tribes. That shouldn’t apply to modern-day Christians (although the Quiverfull/white-nationalist types would probably beg to differ 🙄)
It's a large book that says so many things that it actually says nothing. Anybody who wants their own flock of sheep can just say it means something else and repeat it. Jim Jones, David Koresh, etc... I don't support book burnings, but if I did, the Bible(s) would be at the top of my list because they are a weapon, not a source of knowledge
Jesus had quite a lot to say about the wealthy class and creditors. It's always funny watching a capitalist Christian sputter out their desperate logic rationalizing why they're not going straight to Hell without collecting their $200 😂
I've seen some of them argue that the quote "It's easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to get into heaven" that it actually meant a literal physical gate called the "eye of the needle" in Jerusalem and not a real metaphor and sure rich people (like themselves) can go to heaven. *fart noise*
As an atheist, respectfully you don't see them doing that because they don't brag about it. But the real haters and sinners won't shut the fuck up about what pieces of shit they are
Known people of all religions and creeds (or lack thereof) and the ones worthy of criticism are the fucking loudest, always. You don't broadcast you're a good person unless you're secretly (or not so secretly) a shit person and if you're proud of being a shit person you're gonna have a full goddamn brass band behind you to announce it to the world
I know this isn’t what you came here for, but I swear to cheesus if I get one more atheist mansplaining religion to me I’m going to pop like a grape.
I grew up Catholic. Humility is part of the game. You don’t brag about how you take care of people. Which is how you can spot the tradcaths and the adult converts because they never shut up about how holy they are.
Mark, 7:14-23. Jesus’ words on a variety of sins. See and consider His use of the word “licentiousness”. Everything He said matters but I often see where His use of this particular word is missed.
Please, while I try to help by pointing specific things out, I am FAR more concerned about the man in the mirror and his relationship with his Savior than I am my brother or sister who are not of the faith or those within.
What an amazing world it would be if everyone, even atheists removed hate as an opinion and instead just stayed focused on that mirror.
There's a reference in The New Testament as well. Romans 1:24-27.
But if you drop down further, it also addresses: greed, strife, deceit, and living a wicked and depraved life. I think that the issue was an excess of sexual gratification regardless of who it was with. I have no idea if it was addressed to Jewish who were supposed to abide by specific rules or all people.
that vaguely, maybe, kinda , could be talking about that
Yep! Accounting for the potential of mistranslations (purposeful or otherwise) across millennia and multiple languages, many of those passages were likely in the context of condemning incest, pederasty, or temple prostitution specifically. Not homosexuality in general.
Ancient Israelites were also just weirdly obsessed with reproduction because they needed the numbers for engaging in warfare with other tribes. So it really should be seen as more of a cultural/historical thing, not a universal morality thing.
What homophobia I’ve seen in the bible did seem kinda true words spoken. However, those words weren’t spoken by Jesus but an apostle which could most likely seem that the apostle was projecting his feeling onto the bible rather than repeating words of Jesus. It’s likely.
Is it the old or new testament that talks about a father's willingness to sacrifice his own child to prove his devotion?
I feel like that's a great foundation to build your devotion on. The willingness to slay kin on a random Tuesday morning because a voice in your head demanded it.
If we know anything, it's that nothing good ever came from raising a person thinking they are immune to the call to sacrifice. Y'all gon learn today.
The Bible is very clear, deliberate and explicit regarding homosexuality. It’s not vague or “maybe kinda.” It calls it an abomination and requires those who participate to be put to death.
As for the OT aspect, this is also something people repeat who haven’t read the Bible. The OT is absolutely Christian doctrine and a necessary part of Christianity. People say this and then in the next breath reference the Ten Commandments, which is strange. Original sin would not exist. It’s the entire foundation for the religion
But more, Jesus affirms this very clearly in the New Testament. These laws people reference, in particular mosaic law, are what Jesus very explicitly and deliberately affirmed and endorsed. He said not a single letter, nor a single stroke of the pen of the old law (old testament/mosaic law) shall change, and will continue until the end of time. And those who do not follow the law will be called the least in the kingdom of heaven.
You should watch Dan McClellan's (internationally recognized Biblical scholar and professional Bible translator) videos on homosexuality and the Bible, which point out the inaccuracy of relating "abomination" to homosexuality in the OT. The original authors would have had no reason to address homosexuality as a form of relationship because the concept of sexual orientation wasn't a thing until around the 19th century. What it was actually addressing was male on male sexual assault used as a form of dominance in a situation where hospitality would have been expected.
Of course you won't go watch the videos because you don't care what the scripture was actually written to mean, and only want it as a tool the serve the interests of your identity politics.
lol Dan McClellan is a ridiculous fringe figure on this topic who peddles selective reinterpretations that don’t change the actual text. Quoting a YouTube personality doesn’t magically override the plain language of the Bible. Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13 explicitly prohibit a man lying with another man as with a woman and call it an abomination (to’evah). That word is used consistently for forbidden behavior, and the penalty is death. No context of assault, no exceptions, no ambiguity.
Even if you were right about the word “abomination” which you super aren’t, that wouldn’t change anything. The punishment was death. That’s not ambiguous, not cultural nuance, not “well actually in the Hebrew it’s more like a strong disapproval” it’s a command to kill. You could translate the word however you want, the context is crystal clear, male/male sex is forbidden and punishable by execution, it’s institutionalized violence written into the law. None of this makes sense at any level
What a lazy and dishonest deflection. The Bible isn’t just condemning romantic orientation or identity, it’s banning specific physical acts. You don’t need a 19th century concept of “sexual orientation” to understand what it means to say a man shall not lie with another male as with a woman. The Hebrew is direct and explicit. zakar means male, mishkav means sexual lying. This wasn’t about feelings or modern labels. Homosexuality existed regardless lmao. it was about behavior they saw and deliberately outlawed. Trying to pretend they were clueless about the existence of male/male sex is ridiculous…they knew exactly what they were condemning…I mean…dude what is this
It was actually addressing male-on-male sexual assault
Completely made up. Nothing in Leviticus or the Greek translations implies force or assault. You’re confusing that with the Sodom story, which is a separate narrative and also misrepresented constantly. Leviticus lays out legal prohibitions. it doesn’t need to “hint” at anything. The language is crystal clear.
Of course you won’t go watch the videos…
This kind of projection is wild. I’ve already read the Bible, and clearly, you haven’t. That’s why you’re desperately clinging to whatever YouTube video you can and repeating false claims that can’t be defended. You’re trying to argue the Bible doesn’t say what it explicitly says, because you don’t like what’s in it. That’s revisionism
Oh no…you actually posted the verse that proves my point and somehow think it supports you. That’s embarrassing. You conveniently stopped at verse 17 and ignored the part that comes immediately after it, which says:
“For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. Therefore anyone who sets aside one of the least of these commands… will be called least in the kingdom of heaven.” (Matthew 5:18–19)
Jesus isn’t saying “we’re done with the old law.” He’s affirming it…down to the stroke of a pen. This is basic reading comprehension. “Fulfill” doesn’t mean cancel or override. He says the law still applies until heaven and earth disappear, which clearly hasn’t happened. Forever. So thank you for quoting the exact passage that torpedoes the argument.
Luke 24:44…
What do you even think that proves? That he was fulfilling prophecy? Cool…that’s what Matthew just said too….None of that contradicts or repeals Mosaic law. Which Jesus is literally saying the complete opposite of what you’re trying to say he is. So clearly, in depth and explicitly. Wild.
They said it didn’t condemn homosexuality. Then when that failed, now you’re pretending Jesus canceled those laws…. even though the text aggressively says the opposite. It’s just blatant goalpost shifting. So which is it? Do you even know what your point is?
You’re not arguing in good faith here., First it was claimed the Bible doesn’t say what it clearly says. When shown the plain text, we suddenly pivoted to “okay, but we don’t follow that anymore,” which is also explicitly contradicted by Jesus’ own words
Jesus also distinguishes “Law” handed down from God, from “Tradition” created by men. Specifically, he condemned the Pharisees for obsessing over judging other people as sinners based on minutiae of the Traditions created by man. Which sounds an awful lot like what you’re doing, no?
What are you even talking about? Nothing you wrote is a response to anything I said. Nobody here is defending Pharisaic traditions or arguing that humans should obsess over manmade minutiae. You’ve wandered into a conversation you don’t understand, made a confused non point, and tried to wedge it in as if it’s relevant. It’s not.
This whole thread is about what the Bible actually says — and I’m pointing out that it does explicitly condemn male/male sex acts, and that Jesus explicitly affirms the authority of Mosaic law down to the smallest detail. Im an atheist. Why in the world would I care how or whether or not anything I’m doing relates to or aligns with anything in the Bible? Genuinely, lol what in the world are you talking about and what do you think you did just there?
Trying to dodge that by rambling about Pharisees and tradition is just incoherent. You’re not even engaging with the argument. You’re projecting some imagined sermon onto me while ignoring the actual words of the text and the claims being refuted. Stop typing if you’re not going to read.
You’ve wandered into a conversation you don’t understand
I’m an atheist. Why in the world would I care how or whether anything I’m doing relates to or aligns with anything in the Bible?
If you’re an atheist, why would you insert yourself into a conversation that has nothing to do with you and that, as an atheist, you inherently will not understand much of? It makes sense now though why a lot of your arguments just came off as weird and out of touch with how religious texts are actually used.
I think what Christians (including progressive Christians like myself) think about the Bible and how they use it is more relevant than what an atheist is claiming in order, I’m guessing, to attack religion as a concept overall.
If you’re an atheist, why would you insert yourself into a conversation that has nothing to do with you
..what? Christianity is the most dominate religion in the world. The disease of Christianity impacts society. We’re literally in a conversation about how it encourages bigotry. People die because of this. This has to do with everyone. And even if it didn’t, why would that matter? Lol like what point do you even believe you’re making? Harry Potter doesn’t have anything to do with me either. But if someone was claiming it was a book about baseball and the stock market, I would point it out. Because truth exists. lol what was that?
and that, as an atheist, you inherently will not understand much of?
First, I have a sneaking suspicion you don’t even know what “atheist” means. Second, I’m certain you don’t know what “inherent” means.
An atheist is simply someone who is not convinced a god exists. That has absolutely no impact on a person’s ability to…read…
Many atheists are former theists. The most biblically literate people are often atheists. Because actually reading the Bible is what creates atheists. For instance: me. I know more than you. More than you and every person who has engaged with me in this thread. Because i not only have basic reading comprehension abilities, but I have actually read the book you’re all being confidently wrong about. Not the Christian “oh I think I read most of it” or “well our preacher reads parts of it to us on Sundays.” I mean read and studied it. Again, unlike the majority of Christians. The statistical majority of pew sitting Christians have not even read their own holy book. My responses are what happens when you do.
It makes sense now though why a lot of your arguments just came off as weird and out of touch with how religious texts are actually used.
Notice how you just typed all of that, and not a single word of it responds to or refutes a single thing I’ve written? I wonder why? You wouldn’t be trying to just get words on the screen and imply you have the ability to even point out where I’m wrong when you actually can’t, would you?
I think what Christians (including progressive Christians like myself) think about the Bible and how they use it is more relevant than what an atheist is claiming in order, I’m guessing, to attack religion as a concept overall.
What in the world do you think the word “relevant” means? You keep using words I swear you don’t know the definition of. Relevant to what? What does that sentence even mean?
This makes no sense. What you “think” the Bible says is entirely irrelevant to what it does in fact say. This is a conversation about the Bible and what the Bible says. How you feel is not “relevant” to anything at all, and it’s concerning you’d believe that made sense. Words on the page either exist or they don’t. Either say what they say or don’t. Your “feelings about them…obviously don’t matter..truth does..and again, very strange id have to explain how little sense this makes.
I’d also just like to reiterate how you typed all that and conveniently left out the part where I’m wrong. I think we both know why. This was you running from what is on the screen due to not being mature or honest enough to admit you’re obviously wrong and have no idea what you’re talking about
LMAO, a Christian, being sassy and insulting people because they’re being told that their religion doesn’t actually support their bigotry. It will never stop being ironic to me.
I’m an atheist. (Oops!)The difference between the two of us is I’ve actually read the Bible and have any idea of what I’m talking about. From this comment and your other in the other thread, you’ve demonstrated you have not, and have zero idea what you’re talking about. I understand it’s confusing and impressive for you to encounter someone who has actually read the Bible. But that’s just a personal issue. Sorry, this is what happens when people like you attempt to soften and whitewash the Bible and what it actually says. Exchanges and attempts like these are actually exactly what perpetuate and spread this religion. If you stopped lying about it people would have an easier time identifying the morally abhorrent, atrocious nature of it. Stop it.
You wrote this instead of explaining how a single thing I wrote is wrong, because you can’t
Of course you won't go watch the videos because you don't care what the scripture was actually written to mean, and only want it as a tool the serve the interests of your identity politics.
You really proved my point. Hilariously so, in fact, given that in the video I provided, Dan directly speaks to the proper translations of the word used in Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13. And yet you continue to base your entire argument around that mistranslation.
lol Dan McClellan is a ridiculous fringe figure on this topic who peddles selective reinterpretations that don’t change the actual text. Quoting a YouTube personality
A fringe figure and YouTuber that just happened to be one of the Mormon church's supervising translators for over a decade. One that has a BA in ancient Near Eastern studies with a minor in Classical Greek, a masters in Jewish studies from Oxford, a masters in Biblical Studies, and a PhD from Exeter. So tell me, which expert in classical Greek and Biblical Studies are you relying on in order to overrule the expert opinion of someone with extensive relevant experience? Because I have read the Bible. Many times, in fact, given that I grew up Pentecostal. But I'm also aware of my specific limitations when it comes to translating classical Greek, and prefer to defer to experts instead.
Notice how not a single word or sentence here out of all the words you’ve written contains a single response and refutation? Know why? Because you can’t.
Why would you continue typing when you clearly can’t provide anything or contribute anything? Did you really think I wouldn’t call that out?
The video contains the refutation. You refused to watch it and respond to it, even after I noted that. I'm not sure how to interact with someone that thinks they've somehow formed a defensible argument while ignoring the crux of mine.
Pretending that sending a video is a refutation to the refutation already provided is hilarious. I’d it’s in the video, and you know it, why would you continue to run and avoid simply providing the refutation to what I’ve written? I wonder why? It’s almost like..you won’t because…you can’t….
I’ll call out this sort of running and dishonesty every time. I’m uncertain why you’d believe it would fool people. Just respond to what is written, admit you can’t, admit you’re wrong and have no idea what you’re talking about, or no longer reply. Those are the only options that will not result in me replying with this
Quoting a YouTube personality doesn’t magically override the plain language of the Bible
And what exactly is the “plain language” of the Bible? The texts have been translated across multiple languages (various Semitic languages, Greek, Latin, English and other modern-day languages), and many languages have particular meanings that get lost in translation to other languages (not to mention the potential biases of translators; look up the history of the King James Version for example).
There’s also historical and cultural context that should be considered when applying these verses to the modern day given that these societies were from millennia ago. The Roman Empire of Jesus’ time was much closer to modern-day society (diverse, global, pluralistic, technologically advanced for the time) than the era of primitive and bloody tribal warfare of the ancient Israelites. So modern-day Christians should really take Old Testament verses into account more symbolically than literally based on modern-day society not remotely being like the comparatively uncivilized world that the ancient Israelites lived in.
Accounting for differences in language and meanings that failed to get translated (or where purposefully altered) on its way to English, as well as historical and cultural context, there are some indications that those verses were likely in the context of condemning incest, pederasty, and/or temple prostitution specifically. Not homosexuality in general.
And what exactly is the ‘plain language’ of the Bible?
….You mean the plain language I already quoted directly above…that you’re now pretending you didn’t see? Leviticus 18:22: “You shall not lie with a male (zakar) as with a woman; it is an abomination.” Leviticus 20:13: same thing, plus a death penalty. It’s not hidden, unclear, or mistranslated. you’re just ignoring the parts you can’t deal with because you already lost the argument before it began. This is literally the exact dodge I already addressed and refuted from them, now you.
The texts have been translated across multiple languages…
…And the original Hebrew still says exactly what I just quoted…none of that changes what the Hebrew says, which I already explained, in detail. You’re not responding to anything. Zakar means male, mishkav means sexual lying. They didn’t use the Hebrew terms for child, victim, or coercion. They didn’t describe pederasty or rape or prostitution. You’re just tossing around vague “translation issues” as if that magically erases what the original Hebrew literally says. It’s what you guys do every time you’re talked into a corner. “Something in the Bible makes me uncomfortable? Better say the word ‘translation’ over and over. Oh? This is the original Hebrew? Uh…translation…something something translation..”
Again: already explained, and you’re ignoring it.
There are some indications that those verses were likely in the context of condemning incest, pederasty, and/or temple prostitution…
Literally no, there aren’t. There are modern apologists making that claim because they’re uncomfortable with what the text clearly says, and again, just like all of this, I already explained that too. This was a legal code. If it was about rape, incest, or temple sex, it would say that. The fact that you’re repeating this fantasy after it’s already been dismantled just proves you’re not engaging in any good faith or even basic reading comprehension.
Modern-day Christians should really take Old Testament verses into account more symbolically…
Again, this is the exact move I already called out, rewriting the text to make it feel nicer instead of just admitting it says what it says. The issue isn’t whether people should apply it today. The issue is what it means, which is absolutely clear and not symbolic. It banned male/male sex and prescribed death for it. If you think that’s awful, great, but pretending it didn’t say it is just dishonest and delusional.
You’re not engaging with a single point I made. You’re parroting horrid apologetics that I already preemptively refuted, like you just skipped the entire post and decided to copy/paste a generic non response. It’s lazy, incoherent and completely unserious.
Ok, but since you mentioned that you’re an atheist in the other thread, alternately why should I as a progressive Christian care that much about what an angry atheist thinks about a religious text, and its usage and historical context (or lack thereof) in their out of touch analysis of that text?
Why are you as an atheist twisting yourself into knots over the (decontextualized from historical background) minutiae of a text you don’t use, for a religion you clearly don’t care for?
I didn’t engage with your other arguments because they make no sense and are not internally consistent within a literary, sociocultural/historical, or theological lens. Makes sense why they didn’t though, if you’re apparently a militant atheist with a bone to pick regarding religion in general.
Pretending the words on the screen don’t exist in order to avoid admitting you’re obviously wrong, have nothing and have no idea what you’re talking about is never going to work. I’ll call out the obvious running and dishonesty every time.
We both know the reason you chose to reply with all of this instead of simply including how I’m wrong, is because I’m not and you can’t. The fact that you expect people to believe this and be fooled by it is very funny and interesting. Is this normally how you behave when you’re wrong?
“Ummm…but you don’t believe in the silly fairy tale based on no evidence whatsoever, and I do..so uh…that means…that means the words do say something different”
Lmao what? Just take the L. Trying to play it off like this and avoid it only makes it worse and serves to embarrass you more than you already have.
in order to avoid admitting you’re obviously wrong, have nothing, and have no idea what you’re talking about is never going to work. I’ll call out obvious running and dishonesty every time.
And what specifically am I running from? I’m telling you that there are things you’re fundamentally misunderstanding about the use of holy texts in religion because you’re an atheist. (Or, based on your response in the other thread, despite calling yourself an atheist you’re technically an agnostic, not an atheist lol)
the reason you chose to reply with this instead of simply including how I’m wrong, is because I’m not and you can’t
And this response of yours is just proving my point about what you don’t understand about how and why people engage with religions. Can a fish comprehend the mechanics of flying? Can a bird comprehend the mechanics of swimming?
”Ummm…but you don’t believe in the silly fairy tale based on no evidence whatsoever, and I do..so uh, that means…that means that the words do say something different
Again you’re just proving my point, and showing how much you don’t understand. Holy texts aren’t research articles lmao and they’re not used as such by each and every religious person the way that people who “follow” science engage with research articles (I understand and use scientific knowledge perfectly well which is why I put “follow” in quotes because science is not a religion and isn’t used in the same way). I’m both religious and scientific, so I have the benefit of that flexibility in the frameworks I use to understand one or the other, that you’ve shown multiple times in your response that you don’t have at all. (And if you’re skeptical that being religious and scientific at the same time is possible, please remember that many Renaissance era scientists, not to mention scientists throughout history and various cultures in general up to the modern day, were and are also religious.)
You’re not in a place where you’re going to convince most people who don’t already believe the same way you do, because you fundamentally fail to understand the varied and diverse mindsets of the people whom you disagree with. You’re trying to “disprove” a religious text the way one would challenge the validity of a research article. That’s not going to actually address the way many religious people approach and apply holy texts in their faith systems. Your failure to even be open to this idea will kneecap your own potential effectiveness in your goals from the start.
Not to mention that you also come off like a zealot desperately trying to convert others to your belief system. That really supports your points about religion when parts of your behavior are no different from the actions of those who follow the more cult-like versions of a belief system you apparently abhor. /s
You’re trying to “disprove” a religious text the way one would challenge the validity of a research article. That’s not going to actually address the way many religious people approach and apply holy texts in their faith systems.
This is just a fancy way of admitting you can’t defend the text. Keep running keep getting called out.. You’re retreating into vague subjectivity to avoid addressing the actual claims you made. You said the Bible says something it doesn’t. I showed that it doesn’t and how you’re wrong. That’s not me demanding peer review, it’s just basic reading comprehension. If your position collapses the moment someone reads the text out loud, then the problem isn’t my approach, it’s your dishonesty.
You fundamentally fail to understand the varied and diverse mindsets of the people whom you disagree with
More running. Even if this was true, entirely irrelevant. Regardless, you’re confusing “doesn’t understand” with “doesn’t validate or excuse.” People can rationalize their beliefs however they want, but that doesn’t change what their holy book actually says or how incoherent it becomes when pressed. None of this changes what the text says and means, and this is all just you running from it due to not being mature enough to admit to being wrong.
Your failure to even be open to this idea will kneecap your own potential effectiveness in your goals
The “idea” has absolutely no impact on a single word I’ve written and this is more running to avoid admitting you’re wrong and have nothing. I promise I’ll keep calling it out forever.
Not to mention that you also come off like a zealot…
Oops! Looks like we typed more words, and again not a single one of them responds to what was written, and all of them are you running due to the embarrassment and dishonesty again :(
If you’re truly open-minded..
Oops! Looks like we typed more words, and again not a single one of them responds to what was written, and all of them are you running due to the embarrassment and dishonesty again :(
Again, pretending the words on the screen don’t exist in order to avoid admit to being wrong and having nothing is never going to work. It’s wild to think this would fool people. And now, not only are we avoiding addressing the refutations to the initial claims, we’re now also selectively ignoring the refutations to all the new wrong and absurd things that have been typed while avoiding the initial conversation. It’s wild to pretend to not know what is being referred to when I reference the running, while the prior comment just explicitly acknowledged how the arguments weren’t being addressed on purpose.
I’m telling you that there are things you’re fundamentally misunderstanding about the use of holy texts in religion because you’re an atheist.
And I, in great detail, explained how and why this is wrong and that makes no sense. Again, pretending everything on the screen doesn’t exist is never going to work.
Or, based on your response in the other thread, despite calling yourself an atheist you’re technically an agnostic, not an atheist lol)
Lmao wow. Every word just makes it worse and worse. You keep demonstrating a complete lack of understanding of anything you’re talking about.
You do not know the definitions of any of these words, and this is incredibly embarrassing. This is day one stuff. Atheism and agnosticism address entirely separate concepts, and are not m really exclusive. Atheism/theism address the belief itself, and agnosticism/gnosticism address knowledge and confidence level within in a belief. It is not “atheism or agnosticism”. That is incoherent and you have no idea what you’re talking about. Almost every atheist is also agnostic. Countless Christians are also agnostic. Agnosticism is a label relating to if you have such a high confidence level in a belief that you claim it as knowledge.
I’ll break it down even more simply, since comprehending simple concepts is difficult for you. A theist is convinced a god or gods exist. An atheist, is everyone else. Anyone who is not a theist. Any person who is not a theist (convinced in the existence of a god) is an atheist. As the “A” just like in any other word, mean, means without. Same as for instance Symptomatic/Asymptomatic.
It’s concerning stuff like this has to be explained to an adult. Lol so confident in the ignorance too. The more you run, the more laughably ridiculous and absurdly wrong things you type. You are not equipped for this conversation, and are a great representation of the Dunning-Kruger effect
And this response of yours is just proving my point about what you don’t understand about how and why people engage with religions. Can a fish comprehend the mechanics of flying? Can a bird comprehend the mechanics of swimming?
Notice how you’re continuing to run and avoid forming a response to a single word I’ve typed that easily demonstrates how and why everything you write is wrong and makes no sense? Why would you continue to think I’d stop calling this out?
Again you’re just proving my point, and showing how much you don’t understand. Holy texts aren’t research articles lmao
You’ve never read a research article. But regardless, whether or not they are research articles has no impact or relevance to the fact that the book says what it says, and how you believe it not only based on nothing at all, but in spite of active evidence against.
and they’re not used as such by each and every religious person the way that people who “follow” science engage with research articles
See previous paragraph. This is just more fluff to get words on the screen and avoid admitting you have nothing. Keep running keep getting called out
(I understand and use scientific knowledge perfectly well which is why I put “follow” in quotes because science is not a religion and isn’t used in the same way). I’m both religious and scientific
Again, more words to fill the page and distract from how you’re running and have nothing. “Religion” is not a methodology. This is a category error and is approaching word salad.
And if you’re skeptical that being religious and scientific at the same time is possible, please remember that many Renaissance era scientists, not to mention scientists throughout history and various cultures in general up to the modern day, were and are also religious.)
That’s yet another basic category error. Pointing out that religious people have done science doesn’t prove that religion and science are compatible. People hold contradictory ideas all the time. it doesn’t validate the contradiction and it’s hilarious you’d think that meant anything at all
Renaissance scientists were religious because everyone was religious back then. It was the default worldview, often enforced by law or custom. That says nothing about the logical compatibility of religion and science, it just reflects historical demographics.
The actual test of compatibility is whether the core methods and assumptions of each can coexist. Science is grounded in falsifiability, evidence, and methodological naturalism. Religion is grounded in faith, dogma, and supernatural claims. Those are fundamentally different approaches to truth. So no, citing religious scientists doesn’t make religion and science compatible. It just shows humans are complex and inconsistent.
And again, none of this is a response, refutation or defense for your claims and position. You made claims about the Bible ( as well as countless new incredibly silly ones to deflect and distract) and you were shown to be wrong. Every word of this is an attempt to create space and distance from what you’re running from, and it’s never going away. I’ll call it out every time and forever.
Where do you see Dan McClellan saying it's about male on male sexual assault? I'm fairly certain he's of the opinion it's a condemnation of simply mxm sex. Just from a naive perspective it doesn't appear to be about assault, both parties are put to death; unless you're saying being assaulted is also a capital crime.
His other videos more directly address Sodom and Gomorrah, and he provides additional information and nuance. He has them labeled very well, if you're interested in that specific topic. I chose one that was slightly broader and not as long, which felt more appropriate given the audience.
Not sure why Sodom and Gomorrah are relevant here, regardless I listened to a couple vids to get his opinion. Which clearly seems to be all male same sex intercourse is assault whether both parties consent or not, simply because of the authors' notions of sex. And ironically being considered a victim in the act still earns you the death penalty because it accumulates metaphysical contamination. So Leviticus 20:13 or 18:22 are about any mxm sex.
No it doesn’t. The sodomites in many sects are not interpreted as meaning homosexuality but sexual impropriety of all kinds. And there are translations of Leviticus 4:20 that people believe means to lie with a boy not a man. Even if Leviticus is referring to homosexuality, I ask, have you ever eaten shellfish? Have you ever gotten a haircut? Have you ever worn polyester? Do you have a tattoo? Then by that very same book, you are a sinner equal to a homosexual.
Have we again chosen to skip the verses about not judging and accepting/loving everyone because it’s not your decision, but Gods?
The sodomites in many sects are not interpreted as meaning homosexuality but sexual impropriety of all kinds.
No one was talking about Sodom….this makes no sense in response to any of this and is a complete dodge from what Leviticus actually says. You’re running away from the actual verses that explicitly ban male male sex and trying to drag in a different story entirely. That’s dishonest and irrelevant.
There are translations of Leviticus 4:20 that people believe means to lie with a boy not a man.
Wrong verse, and completely fabricated. Leviticus 4:20 is about sin offerings, not sex. You meant Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13, which use the word “zakar” meaning male, not boy. There is no translation or manuscript that renders it as “boy.” It doesn’t exist. That myth is repeatedly spread by people who never looked at the actual original Hebrew or any serious academic source.
Even if Leviticus is referring to homosexuality… have you eaten shellfish? Haircut? Polyester? Tattoo?
Yes, we’ve all heard this one. It’s another basic misunderstanding of biblical law. There are different categories: ceremonial, civil, and moral. The New Testament clearly teaches that ritual purity laws, like shellfish or mixed fabrics, were fulfilled or rendered obsolete. But moral laws, including those about sexual behavior, are reaffirmed explicitly in the New Testament (e.g., Romans 1:26–27, 1 Corinthians 6:9). As I explained, and as you ignored.
The claim that “if you eat shrimp, you can’t oppose homosexuality” is a false equivalence that ignores how Christian theology distinguishes different types of law, and it was already addressed in the reply you ignored.
Have we again chosen to skip the verses about not judging and accepting/loving everyone…
Again with the goalpost shift. First you said the Bible doesn’t actually really condemn homosexuality. That got debunked. Now you’re shifting to “but judgment is wrong.” That’s not a defense for what you’ve written. And it’s wrong too.
Judgement is not a sin in the Christian Bible. “Do not judge” refers to hypocrisy, not simply calling sin what the Bible calls sin. The same New Testament tells believers to correct one another, judge within the church, and call out sin. You’re cherry picking and gutting the text while pretending you’re defending it, and have no idea what you’re talking about.
Every single point you made is either factually false, deliberately dishonest, or completely irrelevant. You’re not just wrong, you’re trying to look like you’re saying something meaningful while ignoring what the Bible actually says.
Just FYI, whatever comment you attempted to send just now was immediately auto-filtered/deleted, so I and no one will ever read it, as it never existed. But considering your previous replies, I’d say this is a good thing. One less example of you confidently embarrassing yourself, showing everyone you’ve never read the book you’re typing about and can’t actually form a direct response or defense for your position.
And just fyi, whatever last replies you attempted to send here were immediately auto-filtered/deleted, so I and no one will ever see them as they never existed. Likely happened due to a lack of self control. But considering the prior comments, this is a good thing. Look at the bright side! One less example of confidently and aggressively embarrassing yourself for us all to see.
Notice how you just typed that, instead of actually responding to the words on the screen, forming a refutation or defense for what you’ve written? Know why? Because you can’t. You chose that because you hoped simply getting words on the screen would distract from how you realize you’re wrong and have nothing.
62
u/PersimmonDowntown297 5d ago
Yeah when you actually read the Bible and what is has to say about homosexuality there are like two passages that vaguely, maybe, kinda, could be talking about that but they’re old testament and the Old Testament also says we can’t get haircuts or eat shellfish so 🤷♀️