ChemistryAndPhysicsAreFun
1220
66
42
Nov 20, 2025 4:25 AM
ChemistryAndPhysicsAreFun
1220
66
42
wigglemywammybar
Come on! We don’t need fairy tails to know right from wrong. If a man and man or woman and woman want to have a consensual relationship or just fuck each other, no one should have the right to stop them or tell them they can’t.
If you need to run to the bible to prove your point either way or be told what you should think about it, I think you have some serious growth to do.
medimr
He never said we shouldn't own slaves either! Checkmate, atheists!
KnowGoYesStopWin
fatherted
Jesus himself was a cross dresser
TheMoonBnuuy
Technically true, it was people other than Jesus who said that in the New Testament, namely Saul of Tarsus, who was Roman, and the Romans were adamantly against homosexuality, ALTHOUGH they made exceptions if the receiver was a slave, because they didn't view slaves as really counting people...
That moral edict comes from somewhere OTHER than the Jewish god.
And in the Old Testament, things are misconstrued as homosexuality but in the original context are temple prostitution and goddess worship.
Whatdoyousaytoanicecupoftea
...and children, of course
TheMoonBnuuy
Then there's "Soddom and Gammorah" which never explicitly mentions homosexuality in any way. It just basically refers to sexual perversion, which can mean a number of things.
MySushi
Actually, in Hebrew version, they were specific about moral corruption in affluent cities as some word that resembled pederasty, that is young boys, mostly orphans & others lacking benevolent familial protection, being pressed into sexual acts by predatory authority figures. So, hardly any different from ongoings today. Influential perverts of status using poor children for sexual gratification - timeless. Only in later Bible translations they made mature same age anti-gay relationships taboo
TheMoonBnuuy
That was Sodom I believe. Gamorah, if I recall, was more just generalized immorality and debauchery.
LoftheDesert
The people of the city wanted to have sex with the beautiful men whom Lot had as guests. He offered them to rape his daughters instead. And he's called the one just man in Soddom.
MySushi
Women at the time were considered mindless sub-human birthing machines hardly better than pets or livestock, which only had value when attached to a man. Their identity, emotions or their pain did not matter as much, unless it affected a man who valued them. So, it was an acceptable sacrifice for someone to offer up their daughters in exchange for protecting young male friends or cousins, who had more perceived value to society. Lot was accordingly reckoned as the least sinful man of Sodom
TheMoonBnuuy
I don't know why you got down voted, your analysis 100% jives with the original cultural context.
MySushi
We all get downvoted, friend. Any of us who do not blindly romanticize the old world religions and cultures like the revisionists who want us to, are considered an enemy to fundamentalists. We are not atheists because we did not "see the light" or embrace the love of Jeebus, but because we know too much about the distasteful history they want us to forget. Other religions are not much better, imho, so preachers of their faiths may also keep their sermons to themselves
IndependenceHallPhiladelphiaPA
Jesus DOES say to follow the laws of the old testament in Matthew 5:17-20, and we all know what the old testament says about homosexuality.
TurtleMeenageNurtleTutant
"Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by rulers as useful"
Elsoyyo
Biblical literalists are eisegetical.
IndependenceHallPhiladelphiaPA
please elaborate on how matt 5:17-20 is a metaphor and how to determine which verses are literal and which are metaphorical.
LifeIsSoUnfair
The sun literally rises in the East. But literally it doesn't rise at all. The Earth rotates. Spare your pick and choose mentality. You fail to understand the concepts.
Elsoyyo
It's the Charlie Kirk "Prove me wrong" setup that is off putting.
IndependenceHallPhiladelphiaPA
im just curious why would choose to defend something so reprehensible
Elsoyyo
The pre-drawn conclusions pigeonholling any discussion is what's going on. YOYO,
IndependenceHallPhiladelphiaPA
let me put it like this. we both agree chucky was a shithead who said horrible things and therefore we shouldnt quote the good things he might have said. why do you object to applying that same argument to jesus?
Elsoyyo
Specious reasoning gets you to crazy town regardless of the content. Do better.
animatronicChristmasChickens
Very little.
It teaches that being a bottom is sinful because it's like being a woman.
It's truly more about misogyny and hospitality being virtues, and I'm sorry for you if you treat misogyny as a virtue
IndependenceHallPhiladelphiaPA
right. because leviticus 20:13 isnt about homosexuality. are you gonna argue its a mistranslation even though thats been the interpretation for thousands of years or do you have some new interpretation of it?
animatronicChristmasChickens
Leviticus is about the priests keeping ritually clean. That is a whole different thing from sin. Forgetting, it specifically only applied to the levitical priests
IndependenceHallPhiladelphiaPA
right, and commanding that levitcal priests be put to death for homosexuality is somehow better?
animatronicChristmasChickens
Better than what? You are the one who seems to want to worship a misogynistic, abusive being
maybeamonster
my interpretation is you're a dickhead who wants to be mean to people and who justifies it by loving the parts of his religion where god forbid everything and murdered damn near everyone and are explicitly ignoring the beatitudes where jesus told you fucks to calm the fuck down.
IndependenceHallPhiladelphiaPA
my religion? i dont follow religion. all practitioners of abrahamic religion are reprehensible. jesus is indefensible. saying he was not homophobic is a lie.
maybeamonster
so, what, you're just upset a christian took a perspective of their faith that wouldn't require them to be a dick?
Acts 15 releases gentiles from any need to follow the old law.
"It seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us not to burden you with anything beyond the following requirements: You are to abstain from food sacrificed to idols, from blood, from the meat of strangled animals and from sexual immorality. You will do well to avoid these things."
IamIntoleranceIntolerant
Nope, he doesn't. He says that he is there to uphold the old laws, then goes into excruciating detail about those laws. He gives example after example after example.
Those old laws? The Ten Commandments. And there is no Commandment against being fabulous.
IndependenceHallPhiladelphiaPA
18 For assuredly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, one [a]jot or one [b]tittle will by no means pass from the law till all is fulfilled. 19 Whoever therefore breaks one of the least of these commandments, and teaches men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever does and teaches them, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.
he explicitly says all of the laws will still apply, always, until the end of time. btw, are "teaching men otherwise".
IamIntoleranceIntolerant
Only when you take it out of context and ignore the examples he gives. Every example he gives relates to one of the Ten Commandments. That is the context that religious bigots continually ignore so that they can preach hate against the LGBTQ community.
To make matters worse for your interpretation, after that, and before the Lord's Prayer, Jesus adds that you should love God with all your heart, and love your neighbours and your enemies as yourself.
IndependenceHallPhiladelphiaPA
your comment is an explicit violation of Matthew 5:19. this is an in context violation. jesus provides the biggest examples: murder, adultery, divorce, oathbreaking, eye for an eye, love thy enemies. some of these are not included in the 10 commandmants, and most of the commandments are not included. are we then to assume that matt 5:21-48 is an exhaustive list? no, of course not, because in 5:19 he explicitly says not to set aside the least of the laws. this is the context that religious bigots
IndependenceHallPhiladelphiaPA
conveniently ignore to justify supporting a homophobic religion. it is irrelevant that jesus tells you to love god with all your heart and love your neighbors. why cant he say that without also saying "follow the homophobic laws of the past."? why does the book even still include those homophobic parts when you could just remove them? why do you need a book that says to kill gay people to tell people to be nice to their neighbors?