Why does the God of the Bible condemn homosexual acts?
Last Updated: 01.07.2025 01:38
(So please, before you enforce celibacy on another, castrate yourself … or leave other people alone?)
Sodom and Gomorrah. Two cities completely filled with Gay men, young and old. Cities who recently had gone to war, who Abraham had rescued, who Lot went back to live among, who tried to rape two angels that they mistook for men … I guess.
Last, Leviticus. Two almost identical verses. One sex act (If translated correctly. The Hebrew words are sparse. People debate everything).
What is truer than that which is true?
Answer to: Why does the God of the Bible condemn homosexual acts?
Why is it the Legalists always run to the Law?
If anything, Paul was writing about male prostitutes, not LGBT.
PlayStation Plus subscribers react to June free game line-up: 'massive win’ - GAMINGbible
Those women were shunned, shamed, casted out and abandoned. The man had all the power and Jesus dared to challenge that. Even His disciples were astounded.
Since Paul is who most homophobes run to in order to support their case, I went to him first, there really isn’t much left.
Mt 19 is about Divorce. Jesus’ reference to Celibacy is that it is a gift from God and that not everyone can receive it.
I am not a Jewish man. I’m am not under any part of the Law for my righteousness. To place myself under the Law for my righteous standing with God would be to put myself under the curse of the Law listed in Dt 28.
Men interpret Scriptures certain ways, but Jesus said we make void the Word by our tradition. Groupthink is tradition.
Try to break free from the shackles of it and you will find yourself outside the fold Pastor.
These were common in that culture in Athens, Corinth, Ephesus, Rome, and Crete, all places Paul went. They existed centuries after Paul.
Inhospitable, loathsome, yet leave it to homophobia to twist it and miss it (the verse they use in Jude fails the test because of this).
Scholars and translators know this. The Greek translation of Arsenokoitace is uncertain. The word was coined by Paul (probably) or a contemporary of his. Any person who says they know exactly what Paul meant is lying (seriously).
Kidney disease: 5 symptoms women should be careful about - Times of India
Today we have Divorce courts, protections, child custody, child and spousal support.
Him and I are good and that’s all I need.
What? It’s okay for David to be both a man after God’s own heart and a Bloody Bipolar Adulterer who even desecrated what was holy, as long as he wasn’t Bisexual, right? Lol
Further Musings:
The truth is, the Old Testament and New Testaments say next to nothing and sexual orientation is a relatively new concept.
In Romans chapter 1, verses 26–27 are cherry-picked out of the context which starts in verse 18. The context is Idolatry.
Microsoft Confirms Google Chrome Block After Windows 11 Users Complain - Forbes
Many believe Paul is writing about what he sees, temples that have male and female prostitutes engaged in ritual activities.
No one knows.
Where?
If you embrace the fact that David “embraced” Jonathan and God was cool with it, you find that your concepts about what God “hates” get thrown out.
Does He?
Christ bringing up Genesis is not Him being exclusionary, it is Him reminding these lecherous men that their wives are bound to their hearts.
What are examples of real life forced feminization?
(What do you think he would write a line or two about?)
Why can’t some Christians?
Right?
Top NHL free agent forwards: Marner, Ehlers, Boeser likely available - NHL.com
Didn’t they read Galatians? Romans? James and his “Law of Liberty.” The entire New Testament? You can even find Grace in the Old Testament, some of the Rabbis have.
Homophobia is a billion dollar business for Corporate Christianity. Isn’t it?
No. Rape is violence, not sex. The story is about kidnapping into slavery and the abuse of strangers.
Christ bore that, so, hard pass, thanks.
There were Male Shrine Prostitutes in the OT book of Kings, that practice was old in Paul’s time. Many dismiss the idea based what seem to be personal or sociological reasons, not archaeological ones.