22 “Do not have sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman; that is detestable.”
Leviticus 20:13
13 "If a man has sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They are to be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads. "
Romans 1:26-27
27 “In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error.”
Jude 1:7
7 “Just as Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding cities, which likewise indulged in sexual immorality and pursued unnatural desire, serve as an example by undergoing a punishment of eternal fire”
1 Corinthians 6:9
10 “Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.”
1 Corinthians 7:2
“But because of the temptation to sexual immorality, each man should have his own wife and each woman her own husband.”
1 Timothy 1:8-11 ESV
“Now we know that the law is good, if one uses it lawfully, understanding this, that the law is not laid down for the just but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and sinners, for the unholy and profane, for those who strike their fathers and mothers, for murderers, the sexually immoral, men who practice homosexuality, enslavers, liars, perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to sound doctrine, in accordance with the gospel of the glory of the blessed God with which I have been entrusted.”
I could go on, but you get the point. It’s clearly in the bible.
To be fair, the priest did treat some of those verses in the (badly) linked post, with the 1 Corinthians 6:9 and 1 Timothy 1:8-11 ESV explicitly calling “homosexuality” likely due to translation error
I think most of the points he argued are flimsy, because most are “well, actually, if we interpret it like this instead…”. Even the aforementioned translation error is a very weak argument that the original passage didn’t mean some sort of man-on-man action (arsen = man, koites (also the source of coitus) = bed; arsenokoites becoming something like “bed man”).
well, actually, if we interpret it like this instead
does him a disservice. Why not consider the contexts in which all the interpretations have been made? If many of the details are flimsily translated, but the core message of love is consistent then why must people who would prefer Christianity to be a religion of kindness keep telling Christians that they are hateful?
This coming from a non-religious, non-spiritual person.
Even with translation errors, not every verse mentions homosexuality explicitly, but that is clearly the intent of the passage. And that’s the context today anyway, nobody is going to go back and revise it to undo the bigoted interpretation we have today, so his argument doesn’t really matter honestly bcz that’s what people believe now.
“Being gay” isn’t in the Bible EXCEPT for
Leviticus 18-22
Leviticus 20:13
Romans 1:26-27
Jude 1:7
1 Corinthians 6:9
1 Corinthians 7:2
1 Timothy 1:8-11 ESV
I could go on, but you get the point. It’s clearly in the bible.
These modern translations are complete garbage.
To be fair, the priest did treat some of those verses in the (badly) linked post, with the 1 Corinthians 6:9 and 1 Timothy 1:8-11 ESV explicitly calling “homosexuality” likely due to translation error
I think most of the points he argued are flimsy, because most are “well, actually, if we interpret it like this instead…”. Even the aforementioned translation error is a very weak argument that the original passage didn’t mean some sort of man-on-man action (arsen = man, koites (also the source of coitus) = bed; arsenokoites becoming something like “bed man”).
I think reducing his discussion to
does him a disservice. Why not consider the contexts in which all the interpretations have been made? If many of the details are flimsily translated, but the core message of love is consistent then why must people who would prefer Christianity to be a religion of kindness keep telling Christians that they are hateful?
This coming from a non-religious, non-spiritual person.
Even with translation errors, not every verse mentions homosexuality explicitly, but that is clearly the intent of the passage. And that’s the context today anyway, nobody is going to go back and revise it to undo the bigoted interpretation we have today, so his argument doesn’t really matter honestly bcz that’s what people believe now.