Why does the God of the Bible condemn homosexual acts?
13.06.2025 06:17
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.
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.
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.
If anything, Paul was writing about male prostitutes, not LGBT.
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).
Answer to: Why does the God of the Bible condemn homosexual acts?
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
In Romans chapter 1, verses 26–27 are cherry-picked out of the context which starts in verse 18. The context is Idolatry.
How would you spank me if I had been sent home from a school camp because of my poor behavior?
Today we have Divorce courts, protections, child custody, child and spousal support.
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.
Men interpret Scriptures certain ways, but Jesus said we make void the Word by our tradition. Groupthink is tradition.
Where?
Try to break free from the shackles of it and you will find yourself outside the fold Pastor.
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.
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).
Why is it the Legalists always run to the Law?
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.
Do you think this Labour Party is qualified to run our country?
Him and I are good and that’s all I need.
Mt 19 is about Divorce. Jesus’ reference to Celibacy is that it is a gift from God and that not everyone can receive it.
Why can’t some Christians?
Yankees Planning To Place Luke Weaver On Injured List - MLB Trade Rumors
Homophobia is a billion dollar business for Corporate Christianity. Isn’t it?
The truth is, the Old Testament and New Testaments say next to nothing and sexual orientation is a relatively new concept.
Last, Leviticus. Two almost identical verses. One sex act (If translated correctly. The Hebrew words are sparse. People debate everything).
(So please, before you enforce celibacy on another, castrate yourself … or leave other people alone?)
Further Musings:
(What do you think he would write a line or two about?)
Do straight guys like to see cocks?
Right?
No one knows.
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.
Europe will have to be more Tenacious to land its first rover on the moon - TechCrunch
No. Rape is violence, not sex. The story is about kidnapping into slavery and the abuse of strangers.
Many believe Paul is writing about what he sees, temples that have male and female prostitutes engaged in ritual activities.
These were common in that culture in Athens, Corinth, Ephesus, Rome, and Crete, all places Paul went. They existed centuries after Paul.
Pharmacists warn drug shortage affecting cancer patients - BBC
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.