the omniscient creator of the cosmos and all life made specific rules for specific groups of humans but not others. this is a really stupid idea. please work at thinking more about this. im not trying to personally offend you. the idea is stupid, you may be intelligent, but you need to think about this.
Context? Please explain what the context is because I don’t you think you actually know seeing as how there is no context around it. God says don’t do this. You don’t need context for the words of god.
"In its ancient context, though, the law had a perfectly logical reasoning. Both the priestly garments and the tabernacle weavings were a combination of wool and linen. The priest’s white undergarment was linen, and the brightly colored vestment was wool. So it was prohibited for laypersons to dress in the same way"
like I said, context is everything. this specific 'law' was only in place for a certain people during a certain time period. you read the verse but didn't understand why it was said.
17 Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.
18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.
19 Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.
They are just jealous, self conscious, and scared, because they don’t have the nerve or back bone to be themselves. That guy could be getting his prostate massaged and having the greatest live of his life, but an old, outdated book tells him that that sort of love is “bad”, so that’s his life
Plus I guarantee most of these bigots havent read the Bible and just get their interpretations from it, from preachers that tell them they need to make a $100k this week and the more they give the holier they'll be.
It´s exposing their homophobia. Fundamental religious people are those who want to forbid gay marriage, not th other way around. It´s highly moral to make this transparent. You would prefer to know what muslims think society should be dont you?
In fairness, you should probably do so in an intellectually honest manner, which wasn’t done here. I’m going to provide an actual overview of the arguments as a seminarian, so hopefully that’s helpful to folks with an interest in this.
Most Christians aren’t Jewish Christians/Messianic Jews, so Torah (the Old Testament law) isn’t binding on them. Broadly speaking, the Torah’s dietary laws are overturned in the New Testament (Mark 7:18-19 - “Thus he [Jesus] declared all foods clean”). Gentile (non-Jewish) believers are given just three main rules at the Jerusalem Council: (1) don’t eat food sacrificed to idols, (2) don’t eat blood from strangled animals, and (3) don’t participate in sexual immorality.
If the New Testament said nothing about sexual immorality, the most reasonable guess would be that the Jewish understanding of the term was likely maintained, and so the Old Testament laws on sexual immorality would be preserved (including the Levitical prohibition). Regardless, the New Testament does specifically talk about homosexuality as being prohibited in 1 Corinthians 6:9-11, 1 Timothy 1:8-11, and Romans 1:26-27.
The stronger argument against the conservative view here would be to argue the prohibition was cultural due to the existence of pederasty as the dominant form of homosexual intercourse at the time of the New Testament. This was a behavior in which wealthy men would engage in intercourse with typically much younger men or boys. It’s obviously morally repugnant, and modern homosexual relations generally don’t resemble this sort of harmful behavior; thus, the argument goes, modern homosexual relations ought not be judged by what were once reasonable first-century rules.
One could also argue that the New Testament also requires women to wear head coverings (1 Corinthians 11:3-16) and for slaves to obey masters (Ephesians 6:5-9). Modern Christians happily hand-wave these as cultural restrictions which don’t apply today, so one could ask why homosexuality doesn’t get the same treatment.
There are theologically reasonable counterarguments to all of this, and there’s a reason the debate remains alive in the church. Regardless of whether you think these arguments are socially/morally reasonable, it’s at least healthy to steel-man the opposing argument by accepting that there are at least plausible biblical grounds on both sides.
nothing is plausible when there's a rule to have enslavement over other people, but to do so within a certain framework. the very concept itself is one of many keystones that when removed instantly pull the entire sham of religion crumbling down. its absolute nonsense so people need not bother trying to understand it in more complexity.
its just as worthwhile to find as much in harry potter. its all fiction.
there are no plausible grounds for any religious points of view if they rely on fabricated ideas that can't and never have been demonstrable.
to be honest, im not even sure if you're pro or con religion from your post.
As the vast majority of humanity both now and historically, I am religious. However, I think it’s important to be respectful to those who are not, and vice-versa.
I think religious opposition can exist and people can silently not approve.
Hell, if you're against gay marriage... Don't get gay married! That should be the end of it.
But legislate based on religion and trying to moderate other people's lives that's absolutely inmoral.
why is it okay to discriminate against a group of people simply because your protagonist of the "big book of totally real stories" doesnt explicitly say anything about homosexuality being wrong?
where did jesus say homosexuality was wrong?
ill give you a hint, he doesnt touch on it, at all. cause its not a thing.
Well if u believe in god and God created there world. And God told u that these things were wrong. Then its technically moral to have that view. Obviously im an atheist so my views are different but u can't really argue against it being immoral oral if it states in the Bible its wrong
Being religious doesn't grant anyone a pass. It's just a lame excuse. If I were in a religion where you beat puppies would that suddenly become moral? No. And I'm not saying Christians are homophobic. Everyone has their own interpretation of the bible.
I don’t feel like arguing theology right now man. You can have your interpretation of the scripture (if you even read it as you stated you’re an atheist), and I can have mine.
I can believe that Jesus clearly said to kill all humans and let sheep rule the earth in the absence of humans, but just because I believe that doesn't mean it's correct.
I'll believe that as soon as the same people spouting the Bible for bigotry also strictly follow its other rules. Including no shrimp and wearing mixed fabrics.
The Bible states it’s wrong? You know, the book that justifies genocide, infanticide, child sacrifice, rape, slavery, and mass murders that would put the worst war criminal in history to shame. Oh but gay people are in the wrong, that’s unforgivable to these cultists. Give me a fucking break.
That’s not even mentioning all the gay teens living in absolute terror because they know their family would put a fairytale above them and crush them with it. Gay kids who are sent to conversion camps to be abused, tortured, and isolated, the same camps, like churches for that matter, that are full of predators who want to take advantage of these extremely vulnerable kids. Religion encourages that, because zealot parents would rather see their kids hurt in the worst possible way than be gay.
“Oh but we must respect their beliefs” Fuck them. Their beliefs are actively hurting people, not to mention the fucking stupidity and ignorance that religion encourages. Religion is a cancer that needs to be cut out of society.
Child sacrifice? Like Abraham sacrificing his son, whom he told that he will be the sacrifice because god told him to? Ok would you sacrifice your child who obeyed you and was perfect so that you could go to heaven for obeying god and your son going to heaven for obeying you and god(logically speaking)? Besides, Abraham sacrificing Isaac was an act of obedience and love to god, the creator of all, you, your device that you're reading this on, all the food you have eaten , your soul, everything. God creates hard times for us, humans so that we could enjoy heaven fully, god knew that Abraham would go insane without his son, so even then, even if Isaac was actually sacrificed, Abraham would still have proven his loyalty to god, and could have enjoyed heaven more. The sacrifice didn't even happen, an angel stopped Abraham.
Where do you even find justifying genocide or rape in the bible? There commandments that prohibit both. "Thou shalt not kill" , "Thou shalt not commit adultery"(if I remember that last one correctly as I haven't read the bible in English and do not know the official translation). God only prohibited gay sex bc it's lust , being gay wasn't prohibited, so the "zealot parents" you mention(don't know what "zealot" means) probably haven't read the bible (or at least the first 4 books). Parents sending their kids to conversion camps is purely a human thing, god wouldn't do that.
No, although the Abraham one was pretty shitty, Abraham, father of the year, was still a piece of shit for even being willing to go through with killing his son.
No I’m talking about Jephthah, in Judges 11, who made a vow with god that resulted in him burning his unnamed daughter alive to satisfy god’s fondness of the smell of burning flesh. God made the deal with Jephthah that when he arrived home, Jephthah would sacrifice the first thing he saw. The “Oh so god didn’t directly tell him to kill his daughter” excuse doesn’t fucking work with a being that has total Omniscience. God knew that the daughter would be the first thing that Jephthah would see, god knew that deal would result in his follower killing his daughter, and he fucking made the deal anyway.
Numbers 31, Moses and his men, after a military campaign against the Midianites, says this “So now, kill all the boys, as well as every woman who has had relations with a man, but spare for yourselves every girl who has never had relations with a man." Child murder, and sex slavery, justified in one sentence by one of god’s most loyal followers. “Oh but the men married the women/girls first.” Prisoners, hostages, children, cannot consent. And they “married” them while they were probably still drenched in the blood of their slaughtered family members. How romantic.
You’re right, god wouldn’t send gay kids to conversion therapy. As barbaric, cruel, and disgusting as that is, I’m sure god would one up it with something even more cruel. After all this is a god who is not above slaughtering countless children, or having his followers do so, like he does in:
1 Samuel 15:3, where he orders his followers to slaughter the Amalekites and even specifies butchering the infants and children.
Or in 1 Kings 16:4, where he has parents bury their oldest and youngest sons under Jericho’s rebuilt Walls.
The whole point of jesus in the New Testament was to say that the old testament is behind us and thay t jesus represents a new everlasting covenant in which people’s sins are absolved by accepting jesus. That’s the excuse christians give when ignoring everything else the bible says is wrong, funny how they ignore it over gay marriage
The verse or verses of the Bible saying that we shouldn't eat shrimp or pork.
I have never read the Bible. I know that not eating pork is a big part of the Muslim religion, but personally I've never heard it referenced in Christianity. Just clarifying the misunderstanding.
It’s all in the Old Testament. Leviticus 11:9-12 for shellfish, and 11:7-8 for pork.
Though it should be noted that these were effectively nullified in the Christian faith with the New Testament, as in Mark 7:18-19, he declared that “whatever goes into a person from outside cannot not defile him, as it enters not his heart but his stomach.”
Made me actually have to look into it because I’m not as familiar with the Old Testament.
You know what, this just became my favorite verse in defense of gay sex. Doesn’t work so well for marriage, as they’re just gonna argue that does enter the heart. But I’m getting my money’s worth out of this one for gay sex. Thank you lmao https://giphy.com/gifs/I4wGMXoi2kMDe
Does this mean that it is only sinful if you have a small dick? Like the dick has to enter the stomach in order for it to no longer be sinful if we are being literal.
to be clear, the gay passage that he quotes was altered (by Nazis. literally. that's the history) to say man with another man instead of man with a boy. in similarly dated German Bibles it clearly says "man with a young boy." the intent of the verse appears to have been against pederasty, of the sort that was pretty common in Europe and the middle east at the time that the Bible was written. :)
No, we have bible manuscripts going back the the and century and they weren’t modified. The king James translation is still popular and that’s from 1600.
Wrong. That's common Christian apologia. The German translation is from Middle Ages and the original verse clearly is not in German.
The verse says also that BOTH should be killed, so your argument is that Bible is not hateful because instead of saying that homosexuals should be killed it says that victims of child rape should be killed?? How does that make it better??
From the countless other violent and shitty verses of the Bible it's quite clear that Bible is hateful, bigoted, homophobic, misogynic.
Use your brain for critical thinking instead of repeating Christian apologetics without thinking.
was pretty common in Europe and the middle east at the time that the Bible was written. :)
Homophobia was not common at the times of the Old Testament in the Hebrew society?
the practice of boy loving has been common in many cultures across the globe from long ago all the way to today! also there are cultures that celebrated homosexuality so i don't see how it could be anything other than a particular cultural choice
The verse says also that BOTH should be killed, so your argument is that Bible is not hateful because instead of saying that homosexuals should be killed it says that victims of child rape should be killed?? How does that make it better??
He said it, he hasnt read it. If he did, he could actually defend his stance with the new testament where it says all meats are clean and paul talks about the difference between moral law, and traditional law. Smh
It’s relevant to understand the prophecy of Jesus. But the old covenant that Jews followed when they were wandering the desert ended with the new covenant under Jesus.
Its relevant to learn the historical background. Some of the laws about what to eat have actual health benefits. Some of the laws are a judaistic ritual law. If you read the new testament and especially Pauls letters, he describes the differences between laws and which ones are not a requirement and which ones are actual sins against either God, your fellow man, or yourself. The food laws are not a sin nor a requirement anymore, as well as circumcision, the ritual laws and many others. Its confusing if you dont actually read the whole bible and just take bits and pieces, especially from the old testament to justify what you personally want to believe.
Paul?
The Saul in the bible?
The Saul that persecuted Christians and then converted, after never meeting jesus but writing a ton of stuff about him?
That Paul?
Acts 10:9-16 ESV
[9] The next day, as they were on their journey and approaching the city, Peter went up on the housetop about the sixth hour to pray. [10] And he became hungry and wanted something to eat, but while they were preparing it, he fell into a trance [11] and saw the heavens opened and something like a great sheet descending, being let down by its four corners upon the earth. [12] In it were all kinds of animals and reptiles and birds of the air. [13] And there came a voice to him: “Rise, Peter; kill and eat.” [14] But Peter said, “By no means, Lord; for I have never eaten anything that is common or unclean.” [15] And the voice came to him again a second time, “What God has made clean, do not call common.” [16] This happened three times, and the thing was taken up at once to heaven.
Technically the no pork and no fish was in the old testament and they dont count unless your Jewish because in the new testament stuff like that was no longer required. And no we should not outlaw gay marriage
The gay marriage is in the exact same book, the point is that they take most of their bullshit from the Old Testament and pull out your BS argument when others point out the other rules they ignore
The Torah contains moral laws, ceremonial laws, and civil laws. Christians still follow the moral laws (10 commandments). The ceremonial and civil laws were a specific government set up for the Jews roaming the desert thousands of years ago. They don’t apply to anyone else. The New Testament makes that clear.
“And he said to him, 'You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind. This is the great and first commandment. And a second is like it: You shall love your neighbor as yourself. On these two commandments depend all the Law and the Prophets.'"
“A new commandment I give to you, that you love one another: just as I have loved you, you also are to love one another. By this all people will know that you are my disciples, if you have love for one another."
It was never said to be okay to be gay though. So, it is still considered a sin. The food thing was specifically made to be alright in the Bible.
I'm not against gay marriage, but the arguments you guys are making don't work within the context of Christianity. The shrimp argument is easily countered.
And yes, Jesus said to love everyone and he himself showed this by being good to prostitutes and such, but he never said what they were doing was no longer a sin. He only said that we are all sinners, so there is no room to judge.
And I'm not Christian, but if you want to argue within the context of the Bible, you need to know more specifics.
The ENTIRE book of Leviticus was removed from the New Testament. There are examples where it is said that homosexuality would prohibit one from inheriting the kingdom of god if not repentant for their sins, but nowhere does it say that we should condemn anyone for this. Scripture actually specifically speaks against this type of thing. Mathew 7:1-5 says “Judge not, that you be not judged. For with the judgment you pronounce you will be judged, and with the measure you use it will be measured to you. Why do you see the speck that is in your brother's eye, but do not notice the log that is in your own eye? ... You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your brother's eye."
If you want to take all of Jesus’s teaching about love and respect, and choose to only see the three or four that tell you homosexuality isn’t okay, I think you’re looking for an excuse to justify your hatred, rather than having been taught that hatred by Jesus. (Obviously I’m not saying YOU specifically, as you seem to actually be speaking in good faith here… I hope.)
Yeah I’m not going to do that debate with you. This “moral vs. ceremonial" split is a modern reading superimposed onto an ancient text to justify keeping the rules people still agree with while throwing out the ones they don't.
That distinction is pretty subjective to the Christian you're talking to.
They seem to assume God demanded legal punishment for people without a moral reason for it
They act as if when that pedophilic, woman owning culture that stoned gays wrote those books, they had persecution they didn't use ethics to justify and persecution they did use ethics to justify
The Christian books aren't innocent either. And of course the old testament counts to Christians. If it didn't, we'd have a tiny Bible called "the testament."
Persecutory culture had a persecutory gods. They were bad
You could tell the last question made him stop and be like…..wait… he recognized what the interviewer was doing when he asked the final question and hopefully (not likely) sees the hypocrisy in saying “it’s in the bible” when they follow .1% of what the bible actually says. The literal clothes he’s wearing are an affront to the lord and to Jesus, but I bet he doesn’t know that either…..
It was never in the bible that homosexuality is a sin, fake christians (till to this day lmao) twisted what's written in the bible and act all high and mighty. Immoral
And never met the guy, he was not one of the 12, and he claims to have met jesus AFTER he was crucified, so just another charlatan.
The bible has loads of chapters written by bums like him and king james.
Because i am being told this book is the work of god, but then it turns out its about 60 guys who had mixed viewpoints on just about everything and then some king had the whole thing changed to just the things he liked and i am also told that the entire integrity of the piece is solid, and that just doesn't add up.
He also persecuted Christians and was originally named Saul.
Something tells me he guess it was a lot of money in this and converted and started talking as if he had met Jesus.
Need one quote him, is it the quotes that survive that make Jesus' word? I argue it is his beliefs and influence, not written 2000 years ago but said through the human spirit.
Why is it always the shrimp verse (if you steal shrimp verse as the name for your cinematic universe you owe me money) and never Deuteronomy 22:28 or Numbers 31:17. These people are backwood savages and if they want to enforce the old testament law like that you should drag their degeneracy into the light for all to see.
I think Islam does something similar where basically even IF something is a sin, that's on them because they'd be going to Hell not you like you can tell them not to do the thing but if they insist upon it then that's up to them and it's not your business.
Regardless yeah banning gay marriage would be immoral besides we'd get more money into the economy from weddings n' such.
At least in the end it seemed he actually understood the point being made lol, i've seen so many of these clips where the people are too thick to even understand the OBVIOUS in-their-face points hes making lol
Well the New Testament doubles down on gay stuff being bad, and also food laws are ended in the New Testament so this argument is kind of pointless. However I think that the whole point of America is to be separated from state and religion and it’s not harming anyone but the people involved (spiritually) so theoretically they should have the right to get married I think? Maybe I’m wrong but idk that seems like the most correct answer I mean everyone deserves rights and I’m orettt hardcore Christian you can’t make religious laws in a secular country lol
Marriage and food are two completely different things. However, he isn't wrong. The Bible does tell us what food is clean and unclean and should be followed by those that follow the Bible.
I have a quation, the type of people who hate homosexuality based on the biblical prohibition all seem to be conservatives right?
So shellfish and pork aside, how many times are things like THEFT and ADULTERY mentioned in the bible vs homosexuality?
Now tell me who the majority of these people voted for.
TBF, most Christians believe in the "New Covenant". This is the concept that Christ brought the new law, thereby doing away with Mosaic law traditions such as not eating sea creatures or pigs.
But the moral principles taught in the Bible are still seen as part of the New Covenant and thus held by most Christians. This is why the New Testament talks about believers no longer being bound by the dietary restrictions of the Old Testament in Mark 7: 18-19 (as well as other verses). It is also why the Apostles, such as Paul, teach about the new law for believers.
So in reality, neither of these two truly understands what the Bible teaches.
It’s so stupid when non Christians don’t understand the Bible and think they have some huge gotcha. Christian’s don’t follow the government and ceremonial laws in the “old covenant” that was set up for Jews when they were wandering the desert. It’s why there’s a whole New Testament and a new covenant.
You don’t need to go back to the Old Testament to find opposition to homosexuality. It’s in the gospels and Romans pretty explicitly. There’s nothing in the New Testament about avoiding shellfish or pork. Actually the opposite.
Bigots don't want minority groups to be legitimized by the government. Recognizing non-straight marriages legally means acknowledging that non-straight relationships and people exist, and that means they deserve to have rights, which would be inconvenient for continuing to hate them. That's all it is and all it has ever been.
Lame, Jesus made all foods clean overwriting the Mosaic dieatary, ceremonial and civil law. Moral law stays.
Mark 7:18-19 "...“Don’t you see that nothing that enters a person from the outside can defile them? 19 For it doesn’t go into their heart but into their stomach, and then out of the body.” (In saying this, Jesus declared all foods clean.)"
It’s just an example of how they can cite the bible for one thing, but then completely ignore it when it says something that would negatively affect them. Such as eating pork or shrimp. Its just highlighting the hypocrisy you moron
Food, clothing, sacrificial obligations are ritualistic obligations of The Law to separate Israel, a holy nation, aside from gentiles surrounding them. After The Law was fulfilled in Christ, the ritualistic elements have been rendered obsolete, but moral obligations still pertain. Homosexual acts and "marriage" is considered to be a moral issue, immorality of which is most explicitly reinstated in Pauline Epistles which are also divinely inspired.
At least it is so from a traditional Christian perspective.
Bro you're the moron here, the person here is completely in line with what the Bible teaches. Christians DO NOT follow the Mosaic Law because CHRIST FULFILLED IT. 🤦🤦🤦🤦🤦🤦
I never understood these takes. Like, if there is a god, and even if there is some kind of heaven or hell, won’t people be judged at the end? When it comes to things that don’t actually harm others, why not just let them do as they wish and be judged at the end?
Because Christianity teaches you to love others, and if you love others you don’t want them to be judged badly at the end, just like if your child wants to eat a whole family size cake, they might love the idea of it, but you have to stop it because later on they will regret it, they will hate you, but from your perspective it’s coming from love
If your child doesn’t listen when you say you can’t eat a whole cake, do you ostracize them from their siblings, friends, you and your wife/husband and completely shut them out? Your understanding of love is warped.
Yup it is. Dude is quoting mosaic law which isn’t binding on Christians while ignoring the fact that the New Testament very explicitly condemns homosexual acts.
Or it’s just a gotcha to explicitly point out their hypocrisy. An extreme example? Sure. But an example nonetheless. Thank you OC for reminding me that most Redditors aren’t very bright. Cheers
This interviewer is massively misrepresenting these quotes, he is quoting Old Testament food rules before Jesus declared all food pure and so that is why Christians can eat pork etc, the rules on gay marriages were never changed, also the guy being interviewed never gave a quote from Leviticus, the interviewer did that so he could intentionally use the shrimp example, for all we know he wanted to quote one of the many other examples that state marriage is between a man and a woman.
This guy is moral because he is acting within his religion, the interviewer is immoral because he is arguing in bad faith (pun intended) while pretending to give an unbiased interview.
If it's marriage in a christian context, moral. The shrimp/pork part is not relevant since the new testament lifted the food restrictions. Both of them are immoral on the part that they argue using the bible but neither of them has read it properly.
Immoral of the religious person(but not from their perspective) and immoral of the interviewer for using a false equivalency.
Consuming pork and shrimp, falls under Old Testament, and is a ceremonial law. Jesus basically overrode this rule in the New Testament. Laying with another man is a Moral Law and persists in the New Testament.
As someone whos spent sometime with the oto crowd i think this sort of approach misunderstands religion as a thing.
It's not about something big book of laws you can dissect like a lawyer. It's about ritual. When this man says "im against gay marriage" he's preforming a ritual and he believes that preforming that ritual clenses his spirit.
You don't read the Bible to know what's in it, you read the Bible because that is the ritual.
I don't endorse this mindset but you'll never understand the mindset of those who are spiritually motivated if you look at religion from the perspective of a secular lawyer
Even by this ridiculous definition one of the "rituals" of christuanity would be understanding and following the teachings of Christ. You know, the guy the religion is named after. And the vast majority of these conservative "christian" beliefs have nothing to do with his lessons
The gentleman with the mic is using the Bible incorrectly. Think of it this way for those who haven't read the whole Bible: the Old Testament was for Isreal / the New Testament is for all Christians to this day. Very general way of looking at it because there are exceptions like the book of Psalms and more. This does not mean the Old Testament is not needed. It's good to read both and see the connection, leading to Jesus. In other words: the shrimp argument and the pork argument and more, was meant for Isreal to follow. Obviously, people in the past still failed God's laws, so God sent his Son Jesus (New Testament) to die on the cross for the sin of the world. When reading the New Testament, the old covenant with Isreal no longer applies because a believer of Jesus Christ is under the new covenant. Because of grace through faith in Jesus Christ, Christians are going to heaven, not because we're "good enough". No. Jesus followed every law perfectly. We humans obviously do not. People lie, steal, hate their neighbor, etc all the time. A person needs Jesus Christ in order to go to heaven, because of his righteousness, not mine. Proper context is needed and the gentleman with the mic in the video should know this information too. Ty for reading this btw everyone. Keep in mind, I will not debate or comment after this post. If you have any questions, please do the research yourself. I'm not here to start a war. Yet again and the point: proper context is needed. Have a wonderful night everyone. Take care.
82
u/FiletMenYawn 12h ago
Nobody dressed like that is against gay marriage, really.