Also, it’s universally accepted that Leviticus 20:13 is not a command for today. It was a law for Israel to show that even earthly means and men cannot keep Israel’s purity. Christ set us free from the law. We don’t need to kill each other for sinning. Because we cannot be pure. So Christ died to make us pure.
I attend a UCC church and my pastors do not defend what the Bible says about homosexuality the way you just did.
UCC has been known to be rapidly spiralling down into heresy. They say vague things like “God is still speaking” and that god for whatever reason always affirms what the white cultures believe is right. Convenient that your god changes his mind just to placate the culture about what white people living in the west think, huh. Once again like Israel of old, man thinks he stands in judgement over God.
for whatever reason always affirms what the white cultures believe is right.
I assume that by this you’re trying to paint homosexuality and the acceptance of it as exclusive to white cultures. This is complete and total bullshit.
There’s plenty of history of non-white cultures that were fully accepting of homosexuality. Japan is a clear example. Samurai wrote so many gay love poems to each other that they had established literary conventions about it.
What happened, around the world, is that colonizers and missionaries went around the world destroying indigenous traditions and customs and instilling bigotry regarding homosexuality. At the same time, suffering under the yoke of colonialism stifled social progress and the potential for the sort of organic social movements that happened in the West.
Even then, we are seeing in the US a rollback of LGBT rights that we only recently managed to achieve. I don’t think it’s fair to generalize “white cultures” as believing LGBT people have rights, just as it’s not fair to generalize non-white cultures as not believing that.
Christianity barely made a dent in Japan. It had extremely limited success in China. Yet same sex marriage isn’t allowed in these places. However, these places can be very materialistic and idolise work over the West. Doesn’t mean that materialism is good over there. There is an objective right and wrong.
And don’t get me started on Africa and Arabia - places wherein homosexuality is outright banned. While they were affected by colonialism more, why is it that it’s the “enlightened” west which did the colonialism is suddenly changing it’s mind on sexuality?
(Also, should go without saying, I am not in support of banning homosexuality or same sex marriage in a secular context - in fact, I firmly oppose doing such a thing.)
why is it that it’s the “enlightened” west which did the colonialism is suddenly changing it’s mind on sexuality?
At the same time, suffering under the yoke of colonialism stifled social progress and the potential for the sort of organic social movements that happened in the West.
That doesn’t matter. The effects of colonialism lingered as we moved to neocolonialism. Many of the resources that had been seized by force remained in the hands of foreign companies, and countries that stepped out of line or attempted to reassert control of their resources, such as Iran or Guatemala, found their governments overthrown by the CIA in favor of far-right western puppets.
The fear of foreign subversion and the memory of colonial rule has meant that many organic social movements are perceived as foreign backed attempts to compromise sovereignty, or as distractions from national liberation.
How about I put it another way? Why do you think that social progress regarding LGBT rights has happened more in “white cultures?” If not because of colonialism, then what is your explanation? I’m guessing your actual perspective is that it’s just some flight of fancy, that it isn’t actually social progress at all, in any objective sense, and that LGBT rights are not actually inherent things. But I figure I might as well press you on the point to see how you weasel around admitting that.
The fear of foreign subversion and the memory of colonial rule has meant that many organic social movements are perceived as foreign backed attempts to compromise sovereignty, or as distractions from national liberation.
How do you know it hasn’t?
To answer your last question, I believe that it’s a bunch of things. Specifically a secularisation of society and the pushing of Moralist Therapeutic Deism - the idea that God is merely a cosmic butler who just wants people to be happy. The Christian values of non-violence, tolerance, equality, and forgiveness still remain. So does that of charitable giving and respect. But as people abandon scripture- instead turning to themselves to be god, which started a slippery slope as the guardrails were removed. - they then start to actually engage in “follow your heart”, a product of very western philosophy. So if it feels good, it’s right. Such a thing, many other cultures do scoff at. While it did have many good aspects such as lower suppression of women, more personal freedom, it got more and more out of hand. Homosexuality was legalised (I don’t agree with criminalising homosexuality, I’m just giving a timeline), then treated equal to marriage legally (again, not opposing it. I don’t oppose any secular rights granted to people who practice homosexuality, provided it literally doesn’t affect anyone else) and then people appear to start trying to go after the Church and Christian belief on the matter- that which hasn’t changed. As well as going after other cultures. The acceptance of it and legal equality is a product of it’s culture, but that doesn’t mean that such unions should be recognised as sacramentally the same by Christian Churches. And then there are the bigger issues - general sexual immorality, such as “hook-up” culture and the prevalence of premarital sex, drugs, and then without the guardrails, human life was redefined. Since there was no longer scripture and people felt it hampered their ability to engage in sexual immorality, society changed it’s view. A foetus was no longer seen as human and instead as a “clump of cells” so society permitted the killing of these children. Now we’re getting into Euthanasia, and apparently older people may lose that right to live soon - Canada has already offered Euthanasia instead of treatment.
Now, am I saying that society is going downhill compared to the past? Definitely not. In the past we may have had better sexual ethic, but people engaged in greed, war, oppression, suppression, lovers of money, cruelty, violent homophobia, etc. We’re just in a cultural phase where thankfully charity is more common but personal morality and value for life isn’t. The poor used to be treated like non human, than other races, now the foetus. Humanity cannot be perfect. That’s why Jesus is required. That’s why He died for us. Even if we had a strictly Christian society, we’ll probably end up trying to sell indulgences again, as churches are corruptible and always have been, it’s even documented in the New Testament and the Old Testament (presuming the predecessor is Israel)
but that doesn’t mean that such unions should be recognised as sacramentally the same by Christian Churches.
Personally, that’s fine my me - provided that sacremental unions have absolutely zero relevance to the law. If marriage did not affect things like taxes, or being with one’s significant other in the hospital, or anything like that, then I don’t care if you want to have some special exclusive ritual. There’s not really anything stopping you from doing that, as far as I’m aware, like, don’t even tell the state about it, you’ll be fine.
The problem is that Christians simultaneously want to have these sorts of rituals be formalized, legal institutions that everyone is bound by, and they want them to be exclusionary. That’s where we run into problems because it violated the legal principle of equal protection under the law. It’s not really about any of this theological stuff about whether “God just wants you to be happy.” It’s that the law is supposed to treat everyone equally and your side insists that your religious traditions must have a legal basis.
Since there was no longer scripture and people felt it hampered their ability to engage in sexual immorality, society changed it’s view. A foetus was no longer seen as human and instead as a “clump of cells” so society permitted the killing of these children
In reality, the opposite has happened. Society used to view a foetus more as a clump of cells, and abortion in no way equivalent to murder. It was pretty much exclusively a Catholic issue. This only changed when forces on the right recognized how it could be used as a wedge issue to take away women’s rights and to keep people divided.
This whole nonsense goes back to Augustine trying desperately to paper over the inherent contradictions in Christian theology. The question being whether exposure to the teachings of Jesus was necessary to avoid eternal damnation and get into heaven. If the answer is yes, then it leads to the absurd conclusion that God is maliciously torturing countless souls without ever giving them a chance to avoid it, including both fetuses that were aborted or miscarried, as well as “virtuous pagans.” On the other hand, if the answer is no, then it would undermine the Church’s authority by suggesting that there are alternate paths to salvation, as well as calling into question why Jesus’ sacrifice was even necessary, if people don’t even need to hear about it to get into heaven. The Catholic Church itself has moved away from the Augustinian position in favor of the idea that it is possible for fetuses to get into heaven and that there may be other paths to salvation.
Obviously, this is another case where if you don’t subscribe to a specifically Christian perspective, then the whole argument falls apart. I don’t believe in souls at all, and am utterly unconcerned with resolving the theological problems that once led to Christians telling women who suffered miscarriages that their baby was burning in hell. Again, we arrive at the legal question of what vested interest the people or the state have in the matter. Unless banning abortion is defensible from a secular perspective, then this is once again just you insisting that your religious views be legally formalized and imposed on others.
Once again, telling on yourself. What’s not horrible about saying people should be put to death for their private consensual bedroom behavior?
That’s not answering my question. You need a definition of “horrible” to understand what isn’t “horrible”.
I’ll give you two suggestions:
Is “horrible” going against what the culture of white people living in the USA and their society says?
Or
Is “horrible” an objective wrong going against what the infallible objective and perfect creator of the universe says?
If you are a Christian then you’d believe the latter. It is also Christian belief that “all scripture is God-breathed” in regards to the old testament. So therefore Leviticus 20:13, in the way as God intended, isn’t horrible. Now some people’s interpretation of this scripture might be horrible - that possibly means you as well. I just see it as part of the law given to Israel to show as part of the wider narrative that humans are incapable of being perfect and that God needed to send a Saviour and prepare the way for Him. Didn’t Jesus command in John 8:1-11 not to stone someone to death, that we do not have the ability to stone someone to death because we aren’t perfect? And what did the only one there who could judge do? The literal Perfect Creator of the Universe - Whom is deserving of all Honour and Glory - was standing before her in Human Form. He forgave her, and what He said was “Go and sin no more.” There is nobody qualified on this earth to carry out Leviticus 20:13. And He who ascended into Heaven and is seated at the Right hand of God the Father is qualified, offers forgiveness.
I don’t think you’re even reading what I’m saying at all. I literally said that man does not have the authority to carry out what’s described in Leviticus 20:13 due to our sinful nature. I debunked any possible “let’s kill gay people” reading you could have gotten from it by giving the context. I don’t see how that is “dangerous”. In fact, just flat out ignoring your own scriptures because your misunderstanding of it makes you feel uncomfortable and not engaging with it is very dangerous.
I’ll ask you this if you’re actually willing to engage here: What would you say makes someone a Christian?
So you aren’t actually looking to engage, but just shout in an echo chamber. Or maybe you’re feeling conviction because deep down you know what I’m saying is true and it hurts because you cannot be your own god. That’s okay, I have been there once.
But be careful. On the day of Judgement many will say ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and cast out demons in your name, and do many mighty works in your name?’ And then He will declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from me, you workers of lawlessness.’
Me? Blaspheming? I’m just shining a light on what the inspired and infallible word of God says. Baselessly accusing people of blasphemy doesn’t make you right.
Matthew 26:65
Then the high priest tore his robes and said, “He has uttered blasphemy. What further witnesses do we need? You have now heard his blasphemy.
Maybe Jesus’ teaching is dangerous, as you said.
Matthew 16:24-25
Then Jesus told his disciples, “If anyone would come after me, let him deny himself and take up his cross and follow me. For whoever would save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for my sake will find it.
“Jesus tells me to kill myself? Surely I’m the one in charge though, what a horrible god”
How do you define “really horrible”?
Also, it’s universally accepted that Leviticus 20:13 is not a command for today. It was a law for Israel to show that even earthly means and men cannot keep Israel’s purity. Christ set us free from the law. We don’t need to kill each other for sinning. Because we cannot be pure. So Christ died to make us pure.
UCC has been known to be rapidly spiralling down into heresy. They say vague things like “God is still speaking” and that god for whatever reason always affirms what the white cultures believe is right. Convenient that your god changes his mind just to placate the culture about what white people living in the west think, huh. Once again like Israel of old, man thinks he stands in judgement over God.
I assume that by this you’re trying to paint homosexuality and the acceptance of it as exclusive to white cultures. This is complete and total bullshit.
There’s plenty of history of non-white cultures that were fully accepting of homosexuality. Japan is a clear example. Samurai wrote so many gay love poems to each other that they had established literary conventions about it.
What happened, around the world, is that colonizers and missionaries went around the world destroying indigenous traditions and customs and instilling bigotry regarding homosexuality. At the same time, suffering under the yoke of colonialism stifled social progress and the potential for the sort of organic social movements that happened in the West.
Even then, we are seeing in the US a rollback of LGBT rights that we only recently managed to achieve. I don’t think it’s fair to generalize “white cultures” as believing LGBT people have rights, just as it’s not fair to generalize non-white cultures as not believing that.
Christianity barely made a dent in Japan. It had extremely limited success in China. Yet same sex marriage isn’t allowed in these places. However, these places can be very materialistic and idolise work over the West. Doesn’t mean that materialism is good over there. There is an objective right and wrong.
And don’t get me started on Africa and Arabia - places wherein homosexuality is outright banned. While they were affected by colonialism more, why is it that it’s the “enlightened” west which did the colonialism is suddenly changing it’s mind on sexuality?
(Also, should go without saying, I am not in support of banning homosexuality or same sex marriage in a secular context - in fact, I firmly oppose doing such a thing.)
These social movements came about after we decolonised
That doesn’t matter. The effects of colonialism lingered as we moved to neocolonialism. Many of the resources that had been seized by force remained in the hands of foreign companies, and countries that stepped out of line or attempted to reassert control of their resources, such as Iran or Guatemala, found their governments overthrown by the CIA in favor of far-right western puppets.
The fear of foreign subversion and the memory of colonial rule has meant that many organic social movements are perceived as foreign backed attempts to compromise sovereignty, or as distractions from national liberation.
How about I put it another way? Why do you think that social progress regarding LGBT rights has happened more in “white cultures?” If not because of colonialism, then what is your explanation? I’m guessing your actual perspective is that it’s just some flight of fancy, that it isn’t actually social progress at all, in any objective sense, and that LGBT rights are not actually inherent things. But I figure I might as well press you on the point to see how you weasel around admitting that.
How do you know it hasn’t?
To answer your last question, I believe that it’s a bunch of things. Specifically a secularisation of society and the pushing of Moralist Therapeutic Deism - the idea that God is merely a cosmic butler who just wants people to be happy. The Christian values of non-violence, tolerance, equality, and forgiveness still remain. So does that of charitable giving and respect. But as people abandon scripture- instead turning to themselves to be god, which started a slippery slope as the guardrails were removed. - they then start to actually engage in “follow your heart”, a product of very western philosophy. So if it feels good, it’s right. Such a thing, many other cultures do scoff at. While it did have many good aspects such as lower suppression of women, more personal freedom, it got more and more out of hand. Homosexuality was legalised (I don’t agree with criminalising homosexuality, I’m just giving a timeline), then treated equal to marriage legally (again, not opposing it. I don’t oppose any secular rights granted to people who practice homosexuality, provided it literally doesn’t affect anyone else) and then people appear to start trying to go after the Church and Christian belief on the matter- that which hasn’t changed. As well as going after other cultures. The acceptance of it and legal equality is a product of it’s culture, but that doesn’t mean that such unions should be recognised as sacramentally the same by Christian Churches. And then there are the bigger issues - general sexual immorality, such as “hook-up” culture and the prevalence of premarital sex, drugs, and then without the guardrails, human life was redefined. Since there was no longer scripture and people felt it hampered their ability to engage in sexual immorality, society changed it’s view. A foetus was no longer seen as human and instead as a “clump of cells” so society permitted the killing of these children. Now we’re getting into Euthanasia, and apparently older people may lose that right to live soon - Canada has already offered Euthanasia instead of treatment.
Now, am I saying that society is going downhill compared to the past? Definitely not. In the past we may have had better sexual ethic, but people engaged in greed, war, oppression, suppression, lovers of money, cruelty, violent homophobia, etc. We’re just in a cultural phase where thankfully charity is more common but personal morality and value for life isn’t. The poor used to be treated like non human, than other races, now the foetus. Humanity cannot be perfect. That’s why Jesus is required. That’s why He died for us. Even if we had a strictly Christian society, we’ll probably end up trying to sell indulgences again, as churches are corruptible and always have been, it’s even documented in the New Testament and the Old Testament (presuming the predecessor is Israel)
How do I know what hasn’t?
Personally, that’s fine my me - provided that sacremental unions have absolutely zero relevance to the law. If marriage did not affect things like taxes, or being with one’s significant other in the hospital, or anything like that, then I don’t care if you want to have some special exclusive ritual. There’s not really anything stopping you from doing that, as far as I’m aware, like, don’t even tell the state about it, you’ll be fine.
The problem is that Christians simultaneously want to have these sorts of rituals be formalized, legal institutions that everyone is bound by, and they want them to be exclusionary. That’s where we run into problems because it violated the legal principle of equal protection under the law. It’s not really about any of this theological stuff about whether “God just wants you to be happy.” It’s that the law is supposed to treat everyone equally and your side insists that your religious traditions must have a legal basis.
In reality, the opposite has happened. Society used to view a foetus more as a clump of cells, and abortion in no way equivalent to murder. It was pretty much exclusively a Catholic issue. This only changed when forces on the right recognized how it could be used as a wedge issue to take away women’s rights and to keep people divided.
This whole nonsense goes back to Augustine trying desperately to paper over the inherent contradictions in Christian theology. The question being whether exposure to the teachings of Jesus was necessary to avoid eternal damnation and get into heaven. If the answer is yes, then it leads to the absurd conclusion that God is maliciously torturing countless souls without ever giving them a chance to avoid it, including both fetuses that were aborted or miscarried, as well as “virtuous pagans.” On the other hand, if the answer is no, then it would undermine the Church’s authority by suggesting that there are alternate paths to salvation, as well as calling into question why Jesus’ sacrifice was even necessary, if people don’t even need to hear about it to get into heaven. The Catholic Church itself has moved away from the Augustinian position in favor of the idea that it is possible for fetuses to get into heaven and that there may be other paths to salvation.
Obviously, this is another case where if you don’t subscribe to a specifically Christian perspective, then the whole argument falls apart. I don’t believe in souls at all, and am utterly unconcerned with resolving the theological problems that once led to Christians telling women who suffered miscarriages that their baby was burning in hell. Again, we arrive at the legal question of what vested interest the people or the state have in the matter. Unless banning abortion is defensible from a secular perspective, then this is once again just you insisting that your religious views be legally formalized and imposed on others.
Once again, telling on yourself. What’s not horrible about saying people should be put to death for their private consensual bedroom behavior?
Oh give me a break. “No true Christian” much?
That’s not answering my question. You need a definition of “horrible” to understand what isn’t “horrible”.
I’ll give you two suggestions:
Is “horrible” going against what the culture of white people living in the USA and their society says?
Or
Is “horrible” an objective wrong going against what the infallible objective and perfect creator of the universe says?
If you are a Christian then you’d believe the latter. It is also Christian belief that “all scripture is God-breathed” in regards to the old testament. So therefore Leviticus 20:13, in the way as God intended, isn’t horrible. Now some people’s interpretation of this scripture might be horrible - that possibly means you as well. I just see it as part of the law given to Israel to show as part of the wider narrative that humans are incapable of being perfect and that God needed to send a Saviour and prepare the way for Him. Didn’t Jesus command in John 8:1-11 not to stone someone to death, that we do not have the ability to stone someone to death because we aren’t perfect? And what did the only one there who could judge do? The literal Perfect Creator of the Universe - Whom is deserving of all Honour and Glory - was standing before her in Human Form. He forgave her, and what He said was “Go and sin no more.” There is nobody qualified on this earth to carry out Leviticus 20:13. And He who ascended into Heaven and is seated at the Right hand of God the Father is qualified, offers forgiveness.
You are the reason a lot of folks don’t trust Christians. Just under the surface, you (personally) are dangerously homophobic.
I don’t think you’re even reading what I’m saying at all. I literally said that man does not have the authority to carry out what’s described in Leviticus 20:13 due to our sinful nature. I debunked any possible “let’s kill gay people” reading you could have gotten from it by giving the context. I don’t see how that is “dangerous”. In fact, just flat out ignoring your own scriptures because your misunderstanding of it makes you feel uncomfortable and not engaging with it is very dangerous.
I’ll ask you this if you’re actually willing to engage here: What would you say makes someone a Christian?
I was once where you are now.
Just go away. Nobody needs or wants you here.
So you aren’t actually looking to engage, but just shout in an echo chamber. Or maybe you’re feeling conviction because deep down you know what I’m saying is true and it hurts because you cannot be your own god. That’s okay, I have been there once.
But be careful. On the day of Judgement many will say ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and cast out demons in your name, and do many mighty works in your name?’ And then He will declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from me, you workers of lawlessness.’
Why did you even reply? Go blaspheme somewhere else.
Me? Blaspheming? I’m just shining a light on what the inspired and infallible word of God says. Baselessly accusing people of blasphemy doesn’t make you right.
Matthew 26:65
Maybe Jesus’ teaching is dangerous, as you said.
Matthew 16:24-25
“Jesus tells me to kill myself? Surely I’m the one in charge though, what a horrible god”