You quoted Leviticus. You didn't do anything with Romans Chapter 1. 26-27, "For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature. And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another: men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet." Now, there is no words that you can substitute in this. We know what the natural use of men and women are, the act of procreating the human race. "Men with men" is easy to understand and there is no change of words to mean men with boys. Even if it were, the act is still homosexual, male and male. But, then, so is Men with boys as well still also homosexual. So, keep trying to jump through hoops attempting to justify homosexual acts and behaviors. It's still going to be a sin no matter what.
Your ENTIRE bible has been constantly EDITED for partisan AGENDAS throughout the history of Christianity. It is a self serving and self referencing tool used by the UNSCRUPULOUS to CONTROL people. There is NOTHING in the least bit sinful about LOVING the CONSENTING ADULT of your choice. Homosexuality occurs in NATURE and is therefore NATURAL. What IS sinful is CONDEMNING the LOVE that they feel for each other just because a Roman Agent with an AGENDA was TRYING to kickstart a religion that would destroy Judaism. Feel free to continue to BELIEVE in your imaginary deity but We the People opted for a SECULAR government of OURSELVES and built a WALL of SEPARATION between ourselves and RELIGION because the Founding Fathers had ample KNOWLEDGE of the PAIN and SUFFERING that has occurred as a RESULT of these kinds of ABSURD beliefs. So no one gives a crap if you want to call it a "sin". Your right to BELIEVE that nonsense is PROTECTED by the Constitution which at the SAME TIME protects the REST of us FROM your bizarre beliefs.
Yep! Find a religion or church that makes up their own rules to hide their sins. Instead of asking God which of the Churches and religion is true and seek out what God’s laws and commandments are. Most people decide on a religion, church or Atheistism based on their prejudices are instead of relying on the Holy Ghost to testify the truth.
The only editing done is by sinners. Romans chapter 1 is God’s law concerning homosexuality and it’s evil intent.
Then that includes EVERYONE who wrote anything at all in your bible! Thanks for completely disqualifying your own source.
I'm not a Christian, but since the Bible was written decades after the fact, and in the translation form the handed down teachings of Christ, who spoke in Aramaic, that line is probably a misinterpretation of what he actually said. Much of what Christ said can be understood better if you understand Zen and Buddhism, which speaks similarly but from different angles. the 'me' of which Christ speaks, is not the individual known as Jesus, it is the consciousness, the enlighten state of being, and one must let go of everything in your immediate life, i.e., stop clinging to things and people ( including mom and dad ) in order to find that state, it doesn't happen quickly. It happens through letting everything go that one clings to in life, including one's parents, who are only the parents of one's flesh, not one's soul. That's the gist of that teaching. Study Buddhism and Zen and then Christ's words where it is cryptic, or mystical, they start making sense. Another line, 'The meek shall inherit the earth". Well, history is replete where only the strong SOBs tend to inherit ****, and meek people tend to get squat, so that line makes no sense. but, seen as a misinterpretation, and studying Zen and Buddhism, we can see that what Christ actually (or probably) said was an Aramaic word that meant something closer to the word 'humble' and 'meekness' or lack of personal strength, had nothing to do with it. In fact, the humble and strong will inherit the earth, now that makes sense from an eastern philosophical context.
They deleted my post here pointing out basically the same thing. Glad somebody got that observation in and it stayed up a little while. Cancer, polio, and pedophilia must be okay., too, along with Stalin's mass murders and Hitler's death camps; those occurred 'naturally' as well.
Bunk, the Dead Sea Scrolls proved the Old Testament we have today is almost exactly the same as the one centuries BC, where exactly are those New Testament changes? Cancer is in nature, and we hardly determine morality by what animals do. Is a loving pedophile relationship OK? How about a man with his dog? Why would Paul do that? Why would a 'Roman Agent' be arrested, imprisoned, and beaten by Rome? You make no sense. Whatever pain and suffering was caused by the misuse of those beliefs, and don't compare to the body count of atheist regimes. We have separation of church and state, not faith and state. The very Founders who wrote the 1A the next day established a national day of prayer. You seem to. As John Calvin said, it is impossible to truly preach the Gospel without instantly enraging the world. There is no freedom from religion, only a constitutional right to free exercise of religion.
Your denial of factually documented REALITY does not alter REALITY one iota. You were provided with HARD EVIDENCE that your New Testament was EDITED as RECENTLY as the 1940's. Without freedom FROM religion there is NO freedom OF religion.
Pot, meet kettle. Care to enlighten me? I suspect you're talking about translations, not the original languages which cannot change. If only we had freedom from atheists. Guess I'll have to wait til heaven.
The U.S. is a multi-faith country,including non-believers, that was founded on "freedom of religion." It is freedom from the rules and dogmas of other people's religious beliefs so that we can be free to follow the demands of our own conscience, whether they take a religious form or not. Forcing people to accept some particular idea or adhere to behavioral standards from someone else's religion (such as Christianity) means that their religious freedom is being infringed upon.
The Founders only intended that Congress not establish a state church like the UK, individual states had established churches until the 1820s. They also intended that Christianity be fostered, insofar as it did not infringe on the freedom of others. Thomas Jefferson authorized federal funding of Christian missionaries to Indians in the Northwest Territories. Nonsense, ALL laws are an imposition of somebody's world view. Nobody is forcing anyone to be a particular Christian denomination, which is what the Founders wanted to avoid. That was the case at the time in England where for some positions you had to be a member of the Church of England, and were disqualified if Roman Catholic for example. We have a similar problem today where VP candidate Harris seemed to disqualify a judicial nominee due to their religion. See https://catholiccitizens.org/views/...biggest-anti-catholic-bigot-in-the-us-senate/
https://um-insight.net/perspectives/has-“homosexual”-always-been-in-the-bible/ So that is FACTUALLY documented EVIDENCE that your bible was deliberately ALTERED in 1946 from the ORIGINAL to something used to cause HARM to the LBGTQ community. If only atheists had freedom from theists HERE on Earth NOW!
The KJV bible was written centuries ago, how could it by altered? That theory of yours is debunked here: https://www.equip.org/article/is-arsenokoitai-really-that-mysterious/ "Proposition 1. To broaden the word arsenokoitai to include exploitive heterosexual intercourse appears unlikely in view of the unqualified nature of the Levitical prohibitions.16 Proposition 2. In every instance in which the arsenokoit word group occurs in a context that offers clues as to its meaning (i.e., beyond mere inclusion in a vice list), it denotes homosexual intercourse.17 Proposition 3. The term arsenokoitai itself indicates an inclusive sense: all men who play the active role in homosexual intercourse. Had Paul intended to single out pederasts he could have used the technical term paiderastïs.18 Proposition 4. The meaning that Paul gave to arsenokoitai has to be unpacked in light of Romans1:24-27. When Paul speaks of the sexual intercourse of “males with males” (arsenes en arsenes) in v.27, he obviously has in mind arsenokoitai.19" https://www.crossway.org/articles/what-does-arsenokoitai-mean/ Sex was invented by God to be between a man and woman in a life long married relationship, period. It would be a lot easier if you just stayed off this religion forum. Atheist obsession with Christianity (I don't go on Hindu forums telling them they're wrong) is explained by Jesus' saying "I will lift all men to Myself".
The same John Calvin who had a peaceful preacher burned on a pile of green wood with a crown of sulphur over doctrinal differences? That's who you admire? But yeah, sure, two consenting adults in a consensual relationship is waaaaaay worse than murder, huh?
