Ok, you just told on yourself. There is no standard by which Leviticus 20:13 is not really horrible. It was really horrible when it was conceptualized, it was really horrible when King James edited it, it was really horrible when Gutenberg printed it, and it’s really horrible now. I attend a UCC church and my pastors do not defend what the Bible says about homosexuality the way you just did. God is still speaking, I encourage you to listen.
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)
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.’
By what standard?
Ok, you just told on yourself. There is no standard by which Leviticus 20:13 is not really horrible. It was really horrible when it was conceptualized, it was really horrible when King James edited it, it was really horrible when Gutenberg printed it, and it’s really horrible now. I attend a UCC church and my pastors do not defend what the Bible says about homosexuality the way you just did. God is still speaking, I encourage you to listen.
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)
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.’