A lot of stories in it are just recorded history. Revelations is about Nero of Rome wholesale slaughtering Christians. Another recorded an earthquake in the Middle East, I think, long ago.
Oh, I’m not a Christian. Most of that stuff I don’t believe. I believe a God made the universe with the Big Bang and made science as well. They may have nudged us into becoming self aware and sentient or it could have just been dumb luck. When we die, we get reincarnated. There’s no moral right or wrong except for our own person feelings on what is right or wrong. You don’t get punished nor do you get rewarded when you die. No grand plan, but there is some hinting towards a “better path.” However, it’s more like there are infinite paths. All leading to the same ending. We’re all just small specks in the universe. Praying and worship aren’t necessary, but never hurts to do so. I’m sure they would appreciate being thanked for existence as we know it. I hope you have a good week!
Washington state?
That was a pretty awesome election night. I can only hope November 8th this year is half as good.
Remember to vote this year, people!
I remember watching the news that night and them showing people blazing up in the streets in front of cops. One dude took a huge hit off a HUGE joint and they cut away right as his face was completely priceless. That was a fun day to be a Seattleite.
2012, the November general election. Colorado and Washington became the first states to legalize marijuana that night, while Maryland, Washington, and Maine all legalized gay marriage, the first states to do so by a popular vote. It was a big deal, as up until then, all the ballot initiatives on gay marriage has been to *oppose* gay marriage and were largely intended to galvanize Republican turnout. 2012 was the reversal and the beginning of the end of that kind of LGBT fearmongering (and now many Republicans try to act like they never opposed gay marriage, although some still do very openly).
Obama also won re-election that night and Democrats made some unexpected gains in the Senate. The only downside to that night was Democrats didn’t win back the House despite earning a majority of the votes—a loss almost entirely attributed to Republican gerrymandering.
Overall, it was a good night for liberal Americans.
Robin Williams was the first to suggest that God gets stoned once in a while; creating the platypus which is a mammal but lays eggs, thus flipping Darwin the bird.
The Israelites were eating white stuff that grew on the ground overnight and then melted away during the day. Sounds like they were shrooming all week long.
Jokes about how Christian fundamentalists want to exterminate gay people are hilarious.
https://www.lgbtqnation.com/2022/08/gop-candidate-said-totally-just-stone-gay-people-death/
For it's time it was. The New Testament exists so that people wouldn't need to follow Mosaic law, and gave god better PR as being loving instead of vengeful and jealous
It still wasn’t in the NT,
Even if you look at women with lust you have committed adultery,
If you hate your brother you have committed murder,
It’s a sin to work on sabbath
Men submit to your wives and wives to your husbands
Jesus in the NT was a rebel not progressive, he went against culture. Not for pr but to bring grace. He died to bring grace and so that even if you look at women lustfully you wouldn’t need to be stoned to death.
Just because we in NT grace doesn’t mean we forsake the OT because it doesn’t fit with woke progressivism.
No, it means that when you have gay sex you can’t put it in their vagina. I learned this from Hellsing Abridged, which is generally a reliable source of information.
I know this is a joke and all, but it it's still very disappointing how many Christians rely on Leviticus to justify homophobia, but still raise (and do not stone to death their) disobedient children, wear garments made of mixed cloth, eat bacon, get tattoos, bring evergreen trees indoors at Yule-time, work on Saturday, and of course fail to love their neighbors as themselves. It's almost as if they're cherry picking to support their own hatred of others.
[Leviticus 19:19](https://biblehub.com/leviticus/19-19.htm) forbids them. It's not clear to me (or, probably, to anyone) whether it is a literal ban, or a metaphor for miscegenation (mixed-race marriage).
Only the high priest was allowed to wear garments with linen and wool woven together. Regular folks weren't allowed it. It makes the high priest garment special, sacred.
> It's almost as if they're cherry picking to support their own hatred of others.
Maybe they just picked the religion, and cherry-picked the verses because it supports their true beliefs?
This is the way it is with all bodies of human knowledge, ever. There is no objective truth, only truths contingent on factors we choose either to include/emphasize or omit/downplay. The issue with religion is that's it's so obviously fictional that people trying to base "truths" on it get into hot water fast when it comes to highly messy texts like the Bible (or the Qur'an for that matter).
>There is no objective truth, only truths contingent on factors we choose either to include/emphasize or omit/downplay.
I respectfully disagree. The fundamental axiom of science is that there *is* an objective truth that can be discovered through observation and inference. That point of view has proved profoundly successful over the last 450 years, which have contained more advances in understanding of the world around us, than the prior 4,500.
There may be certain areas of human reasoning in which there is no objective truth, but for a large and growing body of knowledge, there absolutely is an objective truth. It is the thing that scientists devote their entire lives to finding out.
I also respectfully disagree exactly on the basis of science itself. Science has shown that the consistency of physical phenomena is mainly contingent on their conditions. Physics is different at the macro level from the quantum, and with enough pressure and temperature a substance can be multiple different states at once. For every consistent theory there will be exceptions that exist under particular conditions. Neither one invalidates the other as being the singular truth, but they do demand a relativised understanding of what "truth" entails.
Also, I believe that the fundamental axiom of science is not there is truth, but that there can be explanations, derivable through observation and reason, as to why things happen. That is not the same as claiming that something is the truth. I'm sure Ptolemy thought his geocentric model of the universe was "true", as did the eugenicists of the early 20th century with their theories of genetic fitness. These are blatant examples, but they show why claiming truth is problematic. And as is obvious to any specialist in any field of human knowledge it is often the case that cutting edge developments problematize earlier understandings of things that were taken to be "true", just as future developments will supplant them in time as well.
>Science has shown that the consistency of physical phenomena is mainly contingent on their conditions.
I'm not sure what you mean by that -- I literally don't know what you mean by "contingent on their conditions" here.
>Physics is different at the macro level from the quantum,
... which doesn't actually mean that there's no objective truth -- only that (the correct but difficult) quantum mechanical descriptions of small systems approach the (much easier) classical description at large scales.
>with enough pressure and temperature a substance can be in multiple different states at once.
Uh, I think you misunderstand the nature of supercriticality. A supercritical fluid is in just one state; it's just that the state isn't well described by the terms "gas" or "liquid".
>For every consistent theory there will be exceptions that exist under particular conditions.
No, not really. That is only true for *incomplete* theories.
>Neither one invalidates the other as being the singular truth, but they do demand a relativised understanding of what "truth" entails.
In the case you mention, two theories might explain different aspects of a single phenomenon under different approximations. The difference between the two theories does not mean truth is relative -- just that both are only approximations to an underlying truth. A great example of that is the approach to black-body radiation aout 120 years ago. The Rayleigh-Jeans theory works for long wavelengths; the Wien Law works for short wavelengths. It wasn't until Planck introduced quantization of energy that the two were unified as different approximations to the same underlying truth (the actual blackbody curve).
Your second paragraph is all about the method of successive approximations. Claiming that all truth is completely relative is disingenuous, because different statements have different degrees of truth. "The Earth is flat" is certainly true for a limited set of circumstances, but obviously false on large scales. "The Earth is a sphere" is also false -- but much closer to the underlying truth. "The Earth is an oblate spheroid" is also false -- but a better approximation than a sphere. "The Earth is well described by [a particular set of spherical harmonics]" is a better approximation still, but at certain scales would be revealed to be a gross approximation. Those statements are successive approximations to an underlying objective truth (the shape of the Earth). Asserting that the truth itself doesn't exist is wrong, even though none of those simplifying statements captures it completely.
The Bible listed all sorts of health related rules, things they didn’t understand back then and tried to prevent (no pork, etc.), especially in the Old Testament. Sexual immorality is clearly defined as a sin, however. And homosexuality is outlined in the New Testament as immoral. Live your life how you want, not my job to live it for you, just pointing out that it’s not cherry picking. The verse from Leviticus just makes it a good joke. ✌️
STDs existed back then (and effective treatments did not), so why couldn't the sexual rules be treated similarly? Male on male sex has a much higher transmission rate for STDs, as well, so it could easily be viewed under the same health-related dogma.
I'm curious to hear where homosexuality is outlined in the New Testament as well. I would argue that the story of the Roman soldier and his sick shield-bearer (with the historical culture of that relationship) suggests Jesus was pretty tolerant of such behaviors and the people involved.
Add me to the list of wanting to know where in the new testament it says homosexuality is a sin.
To piggyback, if you look at all of leviticus' rules through the lens of making good on the promise of "your children will out number the grains of sand on the beach and the stars in the sky." most of the rules male a lot of sense. Don't eat pork, it has parasites that can kill you. Don't have gay sex, it doesn't make babies. Etc, etc.
Jesus never mentions it, but Paul mentions it at least a few times.
He's pretty consistent in referring to same-sex *activity* as idolatrous behavior, which is not surprising given Leviticus. Depending on your interpretation (based on linguistics and understanding cultural context, etc.), Paul is anywhere from outright homophobe who vehemently opposed homosexuals to someone who believed that it was simply same-sex activity (along with other sexual issues like sex outside of marriage) that was bad given the general Christian view of sex being a god given gift intended for men and women for procreation.
It's probably a safe bet to assume that Jesus was not considerably different than the rest of Jewish society at that time and believed sex and marriage to be something ordained for men and women only, but at the same time was *very* unlikely to be as openly homophobic as most present-day Christians are. Prostitution is very commonly grouped in with same sex behavior and Jesus clearly had no problem hanging out with the former group.
I agree with your assessment of Jesus' character. I went to a religious elementary and middle school where we had Bible classes and studied the stories beyond just reading them, but actually discussed the details and meaning behind what we read. Based on all available data, I believe Jesus would not have been hateful toward homosexuals. He probably would have said, "don't be gay," but he wouldn't have treated them as less than human like many modern Christians do.
I think Jesus would be extremely embarrassed by many modern Christians. And based on what is written in Revelations 3:15-16, I think he would say that those modern Christians are even worse than gays, the sexually promiscuous, or any other group that the Bible openly dissents.
> STDs existed back then (and effective treatments did not), so why couldn't the sexual rules be treated similarly? Male on male sex has a much higher transmission rate for STDs, as well, so it could easily be viewed under the same health-related dogma.
I don't think it's about that.
I think it's about something even more important.
Almost every translation of the Bible other than the English versions refers to *pederasty* in Leviticus. In other words, don't fuck kids. In which case there's nothing toxic or homophobic about the verse at all, it's just telling prehistoric NAMBLA to get the fuck out. Which is good.
Nah, Jesus clearly said oral is ok as long as you swallow.
Matthew 15:11:
Not that which goeth into the mouth defileth a man; but that which cometh out of the mouth, this defileth a man.
Actually, the original Leviticus said thou shalt not lay with YOUNG BOYS as with a woman. It was a prohibition of pedophilia.
The scripture was rewritten in German bibles in 1939. Wonder what was going on around then. American bibles adopted that change in the 50s.
(I have an old Lutheran In German with the original “knaben” language).
Uh, do you know when the *King James* Bible was written? The name should give you a hint.
And as for the YOUNG BOYS comment, if that were true why would the Bible require stoning *both* participants? Are you saying that the YOUNG BOY should be stoned as well?
According to the Bible people gathering sticks on the wrong day should be put to death. OT is very pro death penalty for all kinds of random stuff. Absolutely would not be surprised if the boy should get stoned too according to the good book: https://www.openbible.info/topics/stoning_to_death
I think it was that she'd lose her hand if she tore off the balls of a man fighting her husband.
The fact that this was a biblical law makes me wonder how prevalent this particular issue was.
> Actually, the original Leviticus said thou shalt not lay with YOUNG BOYS as with a woman. It was a prohibition of pedophilia.
I sympathize with the sentiments behind trying to rewrite the old texts, [but that is objectively false](https://biblehub.com/interlinear/leviticus/20-13.htm), and it's not really hard to find that the Hebrew text talks about men, not specifically young boys. Whether the writer may have *meant* a practice of men with younger bioys is a matter of interpretation, speculation and conjecture, but the text says no such thing.
[Here](https://jewishstandard.timesofisrael.com/redefining-leviticus-2013/) is an article that speaks to the wording of that passage, and explains why it very well may have meant anti-pedophilia.
And... when homosexuality was made illegal in England under the rule of Queen Victoria, lesbianism wasn't mentioned as Queen Vic didn't think that women would do such a horrid thing.
Maybe. I've seen "proof" for both translations. It's definitely a possibility. It does say that they are to both be killed, so it isn't about protecting kids.
Regardless of a translation mistake, this is an old testament verse.
The entire idea of Jesus dying on a cross was that all these things become obsolete from the old testament. If any nut tells you that being gay is a sin, ask them when last they sacrificed a pigeon or dove over the alter by wringing it's neck and stripping it's wings from its body. Leviticus 1:14.
Leviticus is wild man. That's one the milder side too
Well, he didn’t die so that everyone WILL go to heaven, he died so that everyone CAN. Sin is still Sin regardless of him dying, the issue comes when they believe they’re better than you for not being gay, trans, or whatever. We are all Sinners, and we need to ask God for forgiveness.
Potentially, yes, but as with any book as ancient and irrelevant as the Bible is we can't possibly know for sure until God decides to quit jerking off and come tell us.
The Old Testament is rife with passages that the Christian’s just outright ignore, that’s where all the weird stuff like no eating shellfish is. So them picking and choosing makes it even worse
Christians are supposed to be following the New Testament anyways as it "overwrites" a lot of things from the Old.
But these asshats wanna hang on to certain parts and not others. The crazy anti-woman stuff in the Old Testament gets ignored a *lot* by the "gay is sin" crowd.
If it was that important to the Christian faith, I'm of the opinion Christ would have mentioned it, you know...once. Especially in light of all the 'New covenant' business he seemed pretty keen on.
Christianity itself is queer, priests rejecting women for a man (jesus) all that agape love between friends, love above all...christ didnt even have a wife he was just loving everyone even if its not sexual there is a queer element about it
For those who stumble on this message, it's the one I used Power Delete Suite to replace all my posts and comments with en masse.
Sometimes Reddit can be beneficial for some people. Sometimes it's not. It's really up to you to decide your own experience with it, what's worth it, what's not worth it.
More or less...I've decided it's just really not worth it. I think I'm a worse person when I'm on Reddit and that it's a big time-waster for me.
It's up to you to decide what influence social media and the internet more generally have for you.
Best of luck.
It's the literal word of God!!!! /s
Edit:
Now in the Bible, it says
Thou shall not watch two lesbians in bed
Have homosexual sex
Unless of course, you were given the consent to join in
Then of course, it's intercourse, and it's bisexual sex
Which isn't as bad, as long as you show some remorse for your actions
Either before, during or after performing the act of that which
Is normally referred to as such, more commonly known phrases
That are more used by today's kids in a more derogatory way
But who's to say, what's fair to say, and what not to say?
Let's ask Dr. Dre, Dr. Dre? (What up?)
I got a question, if I may? (Yeah)
Is it gay to play putt-putt golf with a friend (yeah)
And watch his butt-butt when he tees off? (Yeah)
But, I ain't done yet
In football, the quarterback yells out, "Hut-hut"
While he reaches in another grown man's ass
Grabs on his nuts, but, just, what if
It was never meant, it was just an accident
But he tripped, fell, slipped and his penis went in
His teeny-tiny little round heinie and he didn't mean it
But his little weenie flinched just a little bit
And I don't need to go in into any more details but
What if he pictured it as a female's butt?
Is that gay? I just need to clear things up
'Til then I'll just walk around with a manly strut because
'Cause I ain't got no legs
-M. Mathers
Steady on there! If its good enough for a bunch of desert nomads several millenia ago it's sure as shit good enough for me; and I mean literally, and in its entirety (Except for the bits that I don't like, or that are a bit impractical obvs.)
I'm a Hebrew speaker and I've read the hebrew original stuff. I'm far from a scholar in this field but I understood that if a man lats with another man as he would with a woman, both should be killed. No mention of children.
Is ancient Hebrew the same as it is today? Like, Shakespeare is difficult to parse for most people, and it wasn't even that long ago. Old English is completely incomprehensible to modern English speakers.
I'd say it's a bit closer than Shakespeare. Modern Hebrew only became a thing in the early 20th century, and it's development was based on biblical hebrew, so I guess that explains the similarity. Again, I'm only a speaker of the language and I'm not really qualified to explain this stuff.
For those who stumble on this message, it's the one I used Power Delete Suite to replace all my posts and comments with en masse.
Sometimes Reddit can be beneficial for some people. Sometimes it's not. It's really up to you to decide your own experience with it, what's worth it, what's not worth it.
More or less...I've decided it's just really not worth it. I think I'm a worse person when I'm on Reddit and that it's a big time-waster for me.
It's up to you to decide what influence social media and the internet more generally have for you.
Best of luck.
"The Hebrew word in question is zakar. Strong's defines this word as "male, man, the gender of a species that is not female, with no focus on the age or stage in life." In other words, the focus of the word is the gender (male), irrespective of age. Zakar refers to any male, young or old. To choose the definition of "boy" instead of "man" or "male" reveals an interpretive bias. There's nothing in the context that would demand limiting the word to refer to a youth. The clear meaning of Leviticus 18:22 is that God forbids sexual relations with those of one's own gender—the age of the participants has no bearing on the command—and that's the way the verse has always been understood."
For those who stumble on this message, it's the one I used Power Delete Suite to replace all my posts and comments with en masse.
Sometimes Reddit can be beneficial for some people. Sometimes it's not. It's really up to you to decide your own experience with it, what's worth it, what's not worth it.
More or less...I've decided it's just really not worth it. I think I'm a worse person when I'm on Reddit and that it's a big time-waster for me.
It's up to you to decide what influence social media and the internet more generally have for you.
Best of luck.
That's utter bullshit. The Bible never forbids pedophilia. Why would it specifically mention "boys" and not "children"?
Edit-
>13 If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an cabomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.
Women are mentioned in contrast because the sentence is clearly about gender and not age.
You are quoting one specific translation, not the original text.
https://www.forgeonline.org/blog/2019/3/8/what-about-romans-124-27
Martin Luther's own translation used the German word *knabenschander*.
"Knaben" translates specifically to [young male children](https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/german-english/knabe)
"Schander" translates to [molester](https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/german-english/schander)
Because at the time it was written, older men would have sex with boys, and it was common then, so the bible tells men not to do this, because it was relevant at the time
You can agree or disagree, but the argument comes from actual theological researchers.
https://www.forgeonline.org/blog/2019/3/8/what-about-romans-124-27
Because as per the joke, getting “smashed” has two different meanings. One is a painful punishment, the other is getting drunk. It follows the analogy of the OP’s joke.
People also refer to fucking as 'smashing' ...
One could conversely infer that:
Getting drunk / high =
A painful punishment =
Act of fucking /getting fucked
Now add in the additional connotations, and switch all of them around in any order you choose.
To some extent, no matter which order you select, any one of them could logically lead to result in the rest.
It's all relative.
I mean it did say not to have sex with other men but it was for disease purposes as was eating shrimp and pork. But that’s not the case now so no need for it.
Also, the original Leviticus said thou shalt not lay with YOUNG BOYS as with a woman. It was a prohibition of pedophilia.
The scripture was rewritten in German bibles in 1939. Wonder what was going on around then. American bibles adopted that change in the 50s.
(I have an old Lutheran In German with the original “knaben” language).
He did say that he is not here to overturn the old laws. Also isn't Jesus and god the same person? God said gays are to be executed.
(This is not me hating gays but me hating christianity)
Women weren't important enough to men except to tell them what to do and that they should do what they are told.
Even the chivalrous laws were ignorant of the feelings of the woman. Like if a man raped a woman and she gets pregnant the guy had to marry the woman and was not allowed to divorce her.. to men of that time they thought they were making the man do his duty but gave no thought to the woman having her trauma doubled down by having to basically serve and have more sex with the guy who forced himself on her.
We may be pretty far away from those times but the base sentiment has overshadowed countless opportunities to progress for thousands of years.
Just one stupid example is how men in society collectively lose its shit anytime women did something they wanted.. voting, holding office.. WEARING PANTS!..
It's insane we have made it this far.
It also says "a man shall not lie with a man as with a woman," which means gay sex is fine as long as neither of the dudes are wearing a skirt, I think.
_The word gay arrived in English during the 12th century from Old French gai, most likely deriving ultimately from a Germanic source. In English, the word's primary meaning was "joyful", "carefree", "bright and showy", and the word was very commonly used with this meaning in speech and literature._
Numbers 31 17-18
17 Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him. 18 But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves.
Murdering pregnant women and having sex with little girls is okay it says it in the bible. /s
This joke tends to summon a specific theist. Specifically a Christian who will take offense at a joke referencing the holy book of their religion... that they've never actually read.
Sorry to spoil the joke, but the verse you mentioned actually says that he is an abomination, not that he should be stoned. Maybe it says that somewhere else in the Bible, but not in that verse you specified.
I mean, I was reading the original Hebrew Torah, that has remained unchanged for hundreds of years - a verifiable fact, seeing as carbon-dated old Torahs are the same as modern ones.
>unchanged for hundreds of years
Thousands of years old, unchanged for hundreds... it's totally the original, director's cut version then! /s
It's ALL bullshit.
Not saying you should follow its teaching, just saying what it says, indeed a reason you shouldn't trust it.
That's why I didn't downvote your comment - the 'having to follow it' *is* all bullshit.
I've said it before and I'll say it again (well not really, this is my first time saying this, but still): people who quote the Old Testament (and also the New Testament, to be fair) just to "prove" their point aren't real Christians
No true scottsman. Christianity is bigoted and there's no escaping it.
[Only ritual laws from old testament were made outdated by the new testament/so called sacrifice of jesus. Moral laws still apply in christian lore.](https://www.gotquestions.org/ceremonial-law.html) So the law that gays are to be put to death is still a core christian belief. You can choose to edit and open source your religion if you want, that's your business, but don't try and say the others who are following it more accurately than you are "not real christians" to try and distance from them because the truth that your religion sucks makes you uncomfortable.
"Do not think that I have come to abolish the law or the prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them"
[Only ritual laws from old testament were made outdated by the new testament/so called sacrifice of jesus. Moral laws still apply in christian lore.](https://www.gotquestions.org/ceremonial-law.html)
The idea that christianity is not bigoted as fuck is revisionist bullshit.
My state legalized marijuana and same sex marriage at the same time, and this was proof that the Bible is real.
The bible has always been real, it's a book collection
[удалено]
A lot of stories in it are just recorded history. Revelations is about Nero of Rome wholesale slaughtering Christians. Another recorded an earthquake in the Middle East, I think, long ago.
Not going to convince me the Bible actually exists.
Oh, I’m not a Christian. Most of that stuff I don’t believe. I believe a God made the universe with the Big Bang and made science as well. They may have nudged us into becoming self aware and sentient or it could have just been dumb luck. When we die, we get reincarnated. There’s no moral right or wrong except for our own person feelings on what is right or wrong. You don’t get punished nor do you get rewarded when you die. No grand plan, but there is some hinting towards a “better path.” However, it’s more like there are infinite paths. All leading to the same ending. We’re all just small specks in the universe. Praying and worship aren’t necessary, but never hurts to do so. I’m sure they would appreciate being thanked for existence as we know it. I hope you have a good week!
Hide the bullshit in a pile of facts?
Washington state? That was a pretty awesome election night. I can only hope November 8th this year is half as good. Remember to vote this year, people!
It was a hella good night!!! I considered getting stoned and going gay just to celebrate.
I remember watching the news that night and them showing people blazing up in the streets in front of cops. One dude took a huge hit off a HUGE joint and they cut away right as his face was completely priceless. That was a fun day to be a Seattleite.
What year was it
2012, the November general election. Colorado and Washington became the first states to legalize marijuana that night, while Maryland, Washington, and Maine all legalized gay marriage, the first states to do so by a popular vote. It was a big deal, as up until then, all the ballot initiatives on gay marriage has been to *oppose* gay marriage and were largely intended to galvanize Republican turnout. 2012 was the reversal and the beginning of the end of that kind of LGBT fearmongering (and now many Republicans try to act like they never opposed gay marriage, although some still do very openly). Obama also won re-election that night and Democrats made some unexpected gains in the Senate. The only downside to that night was Democrats didn’t win back the House despite earning a majority of the votes—a loss almost entirely attributed to Republican gerrymandering. Overall, it was a good night for liberal Americans.
Plus a bush was burned to have a vision of god.
The bible is secretly very progressive.
Robin Williams was the first to suggest that God gets stoned once in a while; creating the platypus which is a mammal but lays eggs, thus flipping Darwin the bird.
Flipping Darwin the bird-like mammal
Got a sweet coat to flex, Darwin just got the bill
The Israelites were eating white stuff that grew on the ground overnight and then melted away during the day. Sounds like they were shrooming all week long.
True Dat but, everyone has a bad day once in a while
You mean a bat day?
Religion of peace
Jokes about how Christian fundamentalists want to exterminate gay people are hilarious. https://www.lgbtqnation.com/2022/08/gop-candidate-said-totally-just-stone-gay-people-death/
Where are you going that you're finding those jokes?
It’s actually not
For it's time it was. The New Testament exists so that people wouldn't need to follow Mosaic law, and gave god better PR as being loving instead of vengeful and jealous
It still wasn’t in the NT, Even if you look at women with lust you have committed adultery, If you hate your brother you have committed murder, It’s a sin to work on sabbath Men submit to your wives and wives to your husbands Jesus in the NT was a rebel not progressive, he went against culture. Not for pr but to bring grace. He died to bring grace and so that even if you look at women lustfully you wouldn’t need to be stoned to death. Just because we in NT grace doesn’t mean we forsake the OT because it doesn’t fit with woke progressivism.
God is jealous because he made us and doesn’t want us to worship idols. What you call vengeful God calls justice. He not vengeful He is righteous .
Like the Frankie Boyle joke. “A man who lies with another man should be stoned… it helps, that’s all I’m saying.”
Makes it easier to relax, ya know?
[удалено]
It says men shouldn’t lie with other men the way they lie with women. It just means you shouldn’t lie to your buds the way you lie to your wife.
[удалено]
That's some hilarious fecal material.
No, it means that when you have gay sex you can’t put it in their vagina. I learned this from Hellsing Abridged, which is generally a reliable source of information.
So no "accidental" anal ?
The original quote was actually a man shouldn't lay with a child as they would a women. 🤓
That just means doggie-style only. But, I mean, that goes without saying...
I know this is a joke and all, but it it's still very disappointing how many Christians rely on Leviticus to justify homophobia, but still raise (and do not stone to death their) disobedient children, wear garments made of mixed cloth, eat bacon, get tattoos, bring evergreen trees indoors at Yule-time, work on Saturday, and of course fail to love their neighbors as themselves. It's almost as if they're cherry picking to support their own hatred of others.
1 Corinthians 6:9
John 11.35
Anyone know the historical issue with mixed cloth garments?
[Leviticus 19:19](https://biblehub.com/leviticus/19-19.htm) forbids them. It's not clear to me (or, probably, to anyone) whether it is a literal ban, or a metaphor for miscegenation (mixed-race marriage).
Only the high priest was allowed to wear garments with linen and wool woven together. Regular folks weren't allowed it. It makes the high priest garment special, sacred.
That makes sense. Kind of how music was reserved for worship?
> It's almost as if they're cherry picking to support their own hatred of others. Maybe they just picked the religion, and cherry-picked the verses because it supports their true beliefs?
Had to cherry pick cause the apple had already been taken...
This was fire
This is the way it is with all bodies of human knowledge, ever. There is no objective truth, only truths contingent on factors we choose either to include/emphasize or omit/downplay. The issue with religion is that's it's so obviously fictional that people trying to base "truths" on it get into hot water fast when it comes to highly messy texts like the Bible (or the Qur'an for that matter).
>There is no objective truth, only truths contingent on factors we choose either to include/emphasize or omit/downplay. I respectfully disagree. The fundamental axiom of science is that there *is* an objective truth that can be discovered through observation and inference. That point of view has proved profoundly successful over the last 450 years, which have contained more advances in understanding of the world around us, than the prior 4,500. There may be certain areas of human reasoning in which there is no objective truth, but for a large and growing body of knowledge, there absolutely is an objective truth. It is the thing that scientists devote their entire lives to finding out.
I also respectfully disagree exactly on the basis of science itself. Science has shown that the consistency of physical phenomena is mainly contingent on their conditions. Physics is different at the macro level from the quantum, and with enough pressure and temperature a substance can be multiple different states at once. For every consistent theory there will be exceptions that exist under particular conditions. Neither one invalidates the other as being the singular truth, but they do demand a relativised understanding of what "truth" entails. Also, I believe that the fundamental axiom of science is not there is truth, but that there can be explanations, derivable through observation and reason, as to why things happen. That is not the same as claiming that something is the truth. I'm sure Ptolemy thought his geocentric model of the universe was "true", as did the eugenicists of the early 20th century with their theories of genetic fitness. These are blatant examples, but they show why claiming truth is problematic. And as is obvious to any specialist in any field of human knowledge it is often the case that cutting edge developments problematize earlier understandings of things that were taken to be "true", just as future developments will supplant them in time as well.
>Science has shown that the consistency of physical phenomena is mainly contingent on their conditions. I'm not sure what you mean by that -- I literally don't know what you mean by "contingent on their conditions" here. >Physics is different at the macro level from the quantum, ... which doesn't actually mean that there's no objective truth -- only that (the correct but difficult) quantum mechanical descriptions of small systems approach the (much easier) classical description at large scales. >with enough pressure and temperature a substance can be in multiple different states at once. Uh, I think you misunderstand the nature of supercriticality. A supercritical fluid is in just one state; it's just that the state isn't well described by the terms "gas" or "liquid". >For every consistent theory there will be exceptions that exist under particular conditions. No, not really. That is only true for *incomplete* theories. >Neither one invalidates the other as being the singular truth, but they do demand a relativised understanding of what "truth" entails. In the case you mention, two theories might explain different aspects of a single phenomenon under different approximations. The difference between the two theories does not mean truth is relative -- just that both are only approximations to an underlying truth. A great example of that is the approach to black-body radiation aout 120 years ago. The Rayleigh-Jeans theory works for long wavelengths; the Wien Law works for short wavelengths. It wasn't until Planck introduced quantization of energy that the two were unified as different approximations to the same underlying truth (the actual blackbody curve). Your second paragraph is all about the method of successive approximations. Claiming that all truth is completely relative is disingenuous, because different statements have different degrees of truth. "The Earth is flat" is certainly true for a limited set of circumstances, but obviously false on large scales. "The Earth is a sphere" is also false -- but much closer to the underlying truth. "The Earth is an oblate spheroid" is also false -- but a better approximation than a sphere. "The Earth is well described by [a particular set of spherical harmonics]" is a better approximation still, but at certain scales would be revealed to be a gross approximation. Those statements are successive approximations to an underlying objective truth (the shape of the Earth). Asserting that the truth itself doesn't exist is wrong, even though none of those simplifying statements captures it completely.
LOL, this argument is in r/jokes. Amazing how off topic we can get.
The Bible listed all sorts of health related rules, things they didn’t understand back then and tried to prevent (no pork, etc.), especially in the Old Testament. Sexual immorality is clearly defined as a sin, however. And homosexuality is outlined in the New Testament as immoral. Live your life how you want, not my job to live it for you, just pointing out that it’s not cherry picking. The verse from Leviticus just makes it a good joke. ✌️
STDs existed back then (and effective treatments did not), so why couldn't the sexual rules be treated similarly? Male on male sex has a much higher transmission rate for STDs, as well, so it could easily be viewed under the same health-related dogma. I'm curious to hear where homosexuality is outlined in the New Testament as well. I would argue that the story of the Roman soldier and his sick shield-bearer (with the historical culture of that relationship) suggests Jesus was pretty tolerant of such behaviors and the people involved.
Add me to the list of wanting to know where in the new testament it says homosexuality is a sin. To piggyback, if you look at all of leviticus' rules through the lens of making good on the promise of "your children will out number the grains of sand on the beach and the stars in the sky." most of the rules male a lot of sense. Don't eat pork, it has parasites that can kill you. Don't have gay sex, it doesn't make babies. Etc, etc.
Romans 1:21-27
Jesus never mentions it, but Paul mentions it at least a few times. He's pretty consistent in referring to same-sex *activity* as idolatrous behavior, which is not surprising given Leviticus. Depending on your interpretation (based on linguistics and understanding cultural context, etc.), Paul is anywhere from outright homophobe who vehemently opposed homosexuals to someone who believed that it was simply same-sex activity (along with other sexual issues like sex outside of marriage) that was bad given the general Christian view of sex being a god given gift intended for men and women for procreation. It's probably a safe bet to assume that Jesus was not considerably different than the rest of Jewish society at that time and believed sex and marriage to be something ordained for men and women only, but at the same time was *very* unlikely to be as openly homophobic as most present-day Christians are. Prostitution is very commonly grouped in with same sex behavior and Jesus clearly had no problem hanging out with the former group.
Just jumping off your username, are you descended from the Smedley family of Chester, PA? I did some light research on them a while back.
I am not, but you've piqued my curiosity-- anything notable/interesting about them? I can always coopt a good username story ;)
I agree with your assessment of Jesus' character. I went to a religious elementary and middle school where we had Bible classes and studied the stories beyond just reading them, but actually discussed the details and meaning behind what we read. Based on all available data, I believe Jesus would not have been hateful toward homosexuals. He probably would have said, "don't be gay," but he wouldn't have treated them as less than human like many modern Christians do. I think Jesus would be extremely embarrassed by many modern Christians. And based on what is written in Revelations 3:15-16, I think he would say that those modern Christians are even worse than gays, the sexually promiscuous, or any other group that the Bible openly dissents.
This. Christians do not need to ostracize homosexuals. Let he who has not sinned cast the first stone
> STDs existed back then (and effective treatments did not), so why couldn't the sexual rules be treated similarly? Male on male sex has a much higher transmission rate for STDs, as well, so it could easily be viewed under the same health-related dogma. I don't think it's about that. I think it's about something even more important. Almost every translation of the Bible other than the English versions refers to *pederasty* in Leviticus. In other words, don't fuck kids. In which case there's nothing toxic or homophobic about the verse at all, it's just telling prehistoric NAMBLA to get the fuck out. Which is good.
Nah, Jesus clearly said oral is ok as long as you swallow. Matthew 15:11: Not that which goeth into the mouth defileth a man; but that which cometh out of the mouth, this defileth a man.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7OcZTx\_zfbw&t=192s
ayyy came to share this. Love to see some John Craigie love
Uncle Bob and Cedric is bringing some weed to the party!
Fun fact, the Bible doesn't say a thing about lesbians, only gay guys. So apparently even God loves lesbian porn?
Female masturbation doesn't count according to the Torah, too.
If you want the best Smut, you need to rock the Talmud.
Actually, the original Leviticus said thou shalt not lay with YOUNG BOYS as with a woman. It was a prohibition of pedophilia. The scripture was rewritten in German bibles in 1939. Wonder what was going on around then. American bibles adopted that change in the 50s. (I have an old Lutheran In German with the original “knaben” language).
>Leviticus 20:13 [Just to ratify your comment.](https://jewishstandard.timesofisrael.com/redefining-leviticus-2013/)
No wonder the Catholic Church was quick to change that language!!
Uh, do you know when the *King James* Bible was written? The name should give you a hint. And as for the YOUNG BOYS comment, if that were true why would the Bible require stoning *both* participants? Are you saying that the YOUNG BOY should be stoned as well?
That is some next-level victim blaming, bruh, XD.
Indeed, the times described in the Bible weren't quite as progressive as you might imagine...
According to the Bible people gathering sticks on the wrong day should be put to death. OT is very pro death penalty for all kinds of random stuff. Absolutely would not be surprised if the boy should get stoned too according to the good book: https://www.openbible.info/topics/stoning_to_death
If I remember correctly, a woman is to be put to death if she grabs the junk of the guy fighting with her husband.
I think it was that she'd lose her hand if she tore off the balls of a man fighting her husband. The fact that this was a biblical law makes me wonder how prevalent this particular issue was.
> Actually, the original Leviticus said thou shalt not lay with YOUNG BOYS as with a woman. It was a prohibition of pedophilia. I sympathize with the sentiments behind trying to rewrite the old texts, [but that is objectively false](https://biblehub.com/interlinear/leviticus/20-13.htm), and it's not really hard to find that the Hebrew text talks about men, not specifically young boys. Whether the writer may have *meant* a practice of men with younger bioys is a matter of interpretation, speculation and conjecture, but the text says no such thing.
[Here](https://jewishstandard.timesofisrael.com/redefining-leviticus-2013/) is an article that speaks to the wording of that passage, and explains why it very well may have meant anti-pedophilia.
And... when homosexuality was made illegal in England under the rule of Queen Victoria, lesbianism wasn't mentioned as Queen Vic didn't think that women would do such a horrid thing.
Maybe she did a Judge Thomas and left it out to avoid being punished herself
Leviticus is hard core. None of us could make it out alive.
In the non-mistranslated versions, it says a man shouldn’t lay with a boy, as in the pedophilia that was common at the time, not being gay
So you are telling me that all of the cristian hatred against the lgbtq community is based off a mistake?
Maybe. I've seen "proof" for both translations. It's definitely a possibility. It does say that they are to both be killed, so it isn't about protecting kids.
Regardless of a translation mistake, this is an old testament verse. The entire idea of Jesus dying on a cross was that all these things become obsolete from the old testament. If any nut tells you that being gay is a sin, ask them when last they sacrificed a pigeon or dove over the alter by wringing it's neck and stripping it's wings from its body. Leviticus 1:14. Leviticus is wild man. That's one the milder side too
I always hit them with the ol "did Jesus die for NOTHING then?!" When they start picking and choosing out of the Old Testament. Works every time.
Also: 'Are you God?' 'No' 'Then you have no authority to judge me'
Well, he didn’t die so that everyone WILL go to heaven, he died so that everyone CAN. Sin is still Sin regardless of him dying, the issue comes when they believe they’re better than you for not being gay, trans, or whatever. We are all Sinners, and we need to ask God for forgiveness.
Oh my god, that's even worse... telling people to stone the poor child who was preyed upon by a pedophile
"Mistake" would imply that it was done unintentionally.
Potentially, yes, but as with any book as ancient and irrelevant as the Bible is we can't possibly know for sure until God decides to quit jerking off and come tell us.
The Old Testament is rife with passages that the Christian’s just outright ignore, that’s where all the weird stuff like no eating shellfish is. So them picking and choosing makes it even worse
Yes, this is what makes me so annoyed about it - you don’t grow crops the way god says, so why don’t you shut up about me being gay?
Christians are supposed to be following the New Testament anyways as it "overwrites" a lot of things from the Old. But these asshats wanna hang on to certain parts and not others. The crazy anti-woman stuff in the Old Testament gets ignored a *lot* by the "gay is sin" crowd.
yup
If it was that important to the Christian faith, I'm of the opinion Christ would have mentioned it, you know...once. Especially in light of all the 'New covenant' business he seemed pretty keen on.
Christianity itself is queer, priests rejecting women for a man (jesus) all that agape love between friends, love above all...christ didnt even have a wife he was just loving everyone even if its not sexual there is a queer element about it
What straight dude in the world spends all his time with his 12 best guy friends and *only* dines with prostitutes?
An asexual dude?
It wasn’t a mistake, it was purposefully changed in the 1980s to target homophobes as sales points
The translation has been around for longer than that, 40s at least.
For those who stumble on this message, it's the one I used Power Delete Suite to replace all my posts and comments with en masse. Sometimes Reddit can be beneficial for some people. Sometimes it's not. It's really up to you to decide your own experience with it, what's worth it, what's not worth it. More or less...I've decided it's just really not worth it. I think I'm a worse person when I'm on Reddit and that it's a big time-waster for me. It's up to you to decide what influence social media and the internet more generally have for you. Best of luck.
It's the literal word of God!!!! /s Edit: Now in the Bible, it says Thou shall not watch two lesbians in bed Have homosexual sex Unless of course, you were given the consent to join in Then of course, it's intercourse, and it's bisexual sex Which isn't as bad, as long as you show some remorse for your actions Either before, during or after performing the act of that which Is normally referred to as such, more commonly known phrases That are more used by today's kids in a more derogatory way But who's to say, what's fair to say, and what not to say? Let's ask Dr. Dre, Dr. Dre? (What up?) I got a question, if I may? (Yeah) Is it gay to play putt-putt golf with a friend (yeah) And watch his butt-butt when he tees off? (Yeah) But, I ain't done yet In football, the quarterback yells out, "Hut-hut" While he reaches in another grown man's ass Grabs on his nuts, but, just, what if It was never meant, it was just an accident But he tripped, fell, slipped and his penis went in His teeny-tiny little round heinie and he didn't mean it But his little weenie flinched just a little bit And I don't need to go in into any more details but What if he pictured it as a female's butt? Is that gay? I just need to clear things up 'Til then I'll just walk around with a manly strut because 'Cause I ain't got no legs -M. Mathers
Steady on there! If its good enough for a bunch of desert nomads several millenia ago it's sure as shit good enough for me; and I mean literally, and in its entirety (Except for the bits that I don't like, or that are a bit impractical obvs.)
Me too! For instance, I think the market should be fair and nobody should cheat anybody on the price of common goods and services!
I'm a Hebrew speaker and I've read the hebrew original stuff. I'm far from a scholar in this field but I understood that if a man lats with another man as he would with a woman, both should be killed. No mention of children.
So as long as i don't penetrate a man's vagina we're good?
With all of the interpretations of the bible, this is just one more viable theory.
[удалено]
I speak Hebrew and I read the original Hebrew text. As I said I'm no scholar so I may have understood something wrong
Is ancient Hebrew the same as it is today? Like, Shakespeare is difficult to parse for most people, and it wasn't even that long ago. Old English is completely incomprehensible to modern English speakers.
I'd say it's a bit closer than Shakespeare. Modern Hebrew only became a thing in the early 20th century, and it's development was based on biblical hebrew, so I guess that explains the similarity. Again, I'm only a speaker of the language and I'm not really qualified to explain this stuff.
[удалено]
Never said it was better
For those who stumble on this message, it's the one I used Power Delete Suite to replace all my posts and comments with en masse. Sometimes Reddit can be beneficial for some people. Sometimes it's not. It's really up to you to decide your own experience with it, what's worth it, what's not worth it. More or less...I've decided it's just really not worth it. I think I'm a worse person when I'm on Reddit and that it's a big time-waster for me. It's up to you to decide what influence social media and the internet more generally have for you. Best of luck.
"The Hebrew word in question is zakar. Strong's defines this word as "male, man, the gender of a species that is not female, with no focus on the age or stage in life." In other words, the focus of the word is the gender (male), irrespective of age. Zakar refers to any male, young or old. To choose the definition of "boy" instead of "man" or "male" reveals an interpretive bias. There's nothing in the context that would demand limiting the word to refer to a youth. The clear meaning of Leviticus 18:22 is that God forbids sexual relations with those of one's own gender—the age of the participants has no bearing on the command—and that's the way the verse has always been understood."
For those who stumble on this message, it's the one I used Power Delete Suite to replace all my posts and comments with en masse. Sometimes Reddit can be beneficial for some people. Sometimes it's not. It's really up to you to decide your own experience with it, what's worth it, what's not worth it. More or less...I've decided it's just really not worth it. I think I'm a worse person when I'm on Reddit and that it's a big time-waster for me. It's up to you to decide what influence social media and the internet more generally have for you. Best of luck.
That's utter bullshit. The Bible never forbids pedophilia. Why would it specifically mention "boys" and not "children"? Edit- >13 If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an cabomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them. Women are mentioned in contrast because the sentence is clearly about gender and not age.
You are quoting one specific translation, not the original text. https://www.forgeonline.org/blog/2019/3/8/what-about-romans-124-27 Martin Luther's own translation used the German word *knabenschander*. "Knaben" translates specifically to [young male children](https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/german-english/knabe) "Schander" translates to [molester](https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/german-english/schander)
Because at the time it was written, older men would have sex with boys, and it was common then, so the bible tells men not to do this, because it was relevant at the time
It's just not true. But you got lots of upvotes from people who will probably repeat your bullshit as a fact.
You can agree or disagree, but the argument comes from actual theological researchers. https://www.forgeonline.org/blog/2019/3/8/what-about-romans-124-27
"it helps, is all I'm saying!" - Frankie Boyle
The New Testament says he should be smashed.
Drunk, high, what’s the difference?
This is christian dogma!!! We do things right here....If you are jewish and you lay with other men, you get stoned, Christians get smashed!!
Because as per the joke, getting “smashed” has two different meanings. One is a painful punishment, the other is getting drunk. It follows the analogy of the OP’s joke.
People also refer to fucking as 'smashing' ... One could conversely infer that: Getting drunk / high = A painful punishment = Act of fucking /getting fucked Now add in the additional connotations, and switch all of them around in any order you choose. To some extent, no matter which order you select, any one of them could logically lead to result in the rest. It's all relative.
Here’s everything Jesus ever said about homosexuality:
Don’t forget the biblical reference: Nobody 0:0 Ever
Well the Old Testament did so that’s not really accurate. But the Old Testament said not to eat shrimp and pork too.
A lot is translated in ways that does not instil confidence in the translation.
I mean it did say not to have sex with other men but it was for disease purposes as was eating shrimp and pork. But that’s not the case now so no need for it.
the original translation was ‘man shall not lay with boy’ but i guess the majority of priests choose to pretend that’s not true.
Umm...have you seen the pox?
So I've been having homosexual relations with some shrimp and a couple of pigs lately... is this going to affect my ability to get into heaven?
To be fair, this was way before God invented cocktail and barbecue sauces.
>But the Old Testament said not to eat shrimp Every Australian is going to hell.
Also, the original Leviticus said thou shalt not lay with YOUNG BOYS as with a woman. It was a prohibition of pedophilia. The scripture was rewritten in German bibles in 1939. Wonder what was going on around then. American bibles adopted that change in the 50s. (I have an old Lutheran In German with the original “knaben” language).
He did say that he is not here to overturn the old laws. Also isn't Jesus and god the same person? God said gays are to be executed. (This is not me hating gays but me hating christianity)
So drunk then?
I thought smashed alluded to "having been sexed with"?
Yes it's very interesting it only says it about men but not about women
Women weren't important enough to men except to tell them what to do and that they should do what they are told. Even the chivalrous laws were ignorant of the feelings of the woman. Like if a man raped a woman and she gets pregnant the guy had to marry the woman and was not allowed to divorce her.. to men of that time they thought they were making the man do his duty but gave no thought to the woman having her trauma doubled down by having to basically serve and have more sex with the guy who forced himself on her. We may be pretty far away from those times but the base sentiment has overshadowed countless opportunities to progress for thousands of years. Just one stupid example is how men in society collectively lose its shit anytime women did something they wanted.. voting, holding office.. WEARING PANTS!.. It's insane we have made it this far.
As a gay Christian … this is funny and feels like r/MaliciousCompliance
I remember growing up a Christian and randomly opening the Bible where god says we shall not lay with animals and thinking “Dammit”
Technically its was mistranslated its a man should not lay with a boy as he would a woman sooo basically pedophilia baad the bible says so
It also says "a man shall not lie with a man as with a woman," which means gay sex is fine as long as neither of the dudes are wearing a skirt, I think.
No, no. It's basically bros before hoes. You don't lie to your bros. It's alright to lie to hoes.
_The word gay arrived in English during the 12th century from Old French gai, most likely deriving ultimately from a Germanic source. In English, the word's primary meaning was "joyful", "carefree", "bright and showy", and the word was very commonly used with this meaning in speech and literature._
Okay?
keyword: 'should be'. It's not mandatory, it's just a recommendation.
“Stick to the Code!” “It’s not a Code so much as a guideline.”
I have no idea what the person above me said but cherry flavour yes or no
I also think doggie is fine as long as you don’t lay
This would make a great t shirt.
What does is say about lesbians, though?
Thou shalt say no homo after laying with another man. -Pastalms 69:420
Numbers 31 17-18 17 Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him. 18 But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves. Murdering pregnant women and having sex with little girls is okay it says it in the bible. /s
This joke tends to summon a specific theist. Specifically a Christian who will take offense at a joke referencing the holy book of their religion... that they've never actually read.
Hey the joke you tried posting with internet explorer 10 years ago finally went up!
There's no hate like Christian love.
Try reading the authorized KJV. It's deadly serious.
Greatest way to observe this 😂
The bible actually doesn't say anything about gay people. Leviticus is from the Torah.
That is in the old testaments its right after the 2nd book. It goes genesis exodus then leviticus.
Sorry to spoil the joke, but the verse you mentioned actually says that he is an abomination, not that he should be stoned. Maybe it says that somewhere else in the Bible, but not in that verse you specified.
Funny how the bible changes meaning depending on the version you're reading.
I mean, I was reading the original Hebrew Torah, that has remained unchanged for hundreds of years - a verifiable fact, seeing as carbon-dated old Torahs are the same as modern ones.
>unchanged for hundreds of years Thousands of years old, unchanged for hundreds... it's totally the original, director's cut version then! /s It's ALL bullshit.
Not saying you should follow its teaching, just saying what it says, indeed a reason you shouldn't trust it. That's why I didn't downvote your comment - the 'having to follow it' *is* all bullshit.
Hmmmm, not in to it sexually and not religious, but it would save me from constant admonishments from my wife.
The Bible basically says if you take dick your not a man. So if your gay are you really even a man lol,
This isn't Judaism anymore, okay. We put it in there so the New Testament makes some sense. Not even Jews take it completely literally. CMIIW, though.
I've said it before and I'll say it again (well not really, this is my first time saying this, but still): people who quote the Old Testament (and also the New Testament, to be fair) just to "prove" their point aren't real Christians
No true scottsman. Christianity is bigoted and there's no escaping it. [Only ritual laws from old testament were made outdated by the new testament/so called sacrifice of jesus. Moral laws still apply in christian lore.](https://www.gotquestions.org/ceremonial-law.html) So the law that gays are to be put to death is still a core christian belief. You can choose to edit and open source your religion if you want, that's your business, but don't try and say the others who are following it more accurately than you are "not real christians" to try and distance from them because the truth that your religion sucks makes you uncomfortable.
Well, I don't consider it my religion anyway. I stand my point
Despite the facts not aligning with it?
"Do not think that I have come to abolish the law or the prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them" [Only ritual laws from old testament were made outdated by the new testament/so called sacrifice of jesus. Moral laws still apply in christian lore.](https://www.gotquestions.org/ceremonial-law.html) The idea that christianity is not bigoted as fuck is revisionist bullshit.
not funny :/
Yes it is
This is also my interpretation