comment: >
  
  I mean, in the end we all pick the rules we choose to follow.
context: /u/LiaTheGamer (OP) has awarded 1 delta(s) in this post.
  All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.
  Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.
  ^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards >
  
  A good number of Christian denominations say that Jesus fulfilled the laws described in the old testament and now those laws no longer have to be followed. Under this interpretation of Jesus, which is argued by most mainstream Christian faith groups, Leviticus and other old-testament lists of laws are no longer relevant.
  Based on this view, you can accept homosexual people and still be in-line with the teachings of the bible and therefore be a good Christian >
  
  That seems like a cop out. Did Jesus ever say he was doing any of that? did Christians stop observing those laws after Jesus? or was this something made up 2 millenia after the fact to make Christians look less mean?
  And even if it were well-justified by the text, that would still mean any gay people before Jesus were wrong, and deserved to be oppressed, arrested, and stoned like they were. Do you believe that was right? >
  
  I can't access the text as I am not from the US.
  But those are different laws, presumably with different importance. The Bible specifies some pretty extreme punishments doesn't it? so those laws do not seem to be ones that are taken lightly.
  And what do you think of gay people who lived before Jesus? >
  
  If you look at a lot of many of the old testament laws, they have some basis in health, safety, etc.  Such as restrictions on foods that if not prepared properly can easily lead to health issues, and this could also have a basis in gay sex being far more likely to transmit certain diseases than heterosexual sex.  
  Another nuance with the mention of gay sex was that while they were to be put to death, it never said anything about if that particular sin would exclude them from heaven.  People can commit all sorts of sins and still enter heaven.
  So gay people before jesus who are outed would probably be killed, but they may still enter into heaven, only god knows for sure. >
  
  My question was whether you think people would be right, and whether they would be doing what God wanted, to execute someone for having gay sex before Jesus? If you think they should be executed, but they can go to heaven, that isn't much consolation. >
  
  I think if an eternal afterlife exists, dying and going there is an absolutely huge consolation. 
  It would be similar to how lepers were cast out of society.  being cast out of society on your own would often lead to a relatively soon death.  They weren't directly killing them, but they were still causing their death.  But the alternative would be risking an outbreak of leprosy sweeping through the population.  
  being killed for being a leper resulted in you being dead, but not banning you from heaven, so you have a pretty nice end result even if your final days are far from pleasant. >
  
  Gay people are not infectious and do not cause any kind of harm to those around them through being gay. Moreover, casting someone out is very different than executing them. There is simply no justification for executing people for being gay, in any time period. >
  
  Do you apply the same logic to other rules in Leviticus? >
  
  because I'm curious where you're going with that, let's say yes (I am not OP) >
  
  I'm an atheist but I don't understand these sorts of simplistic dismissals of Christianity or religion. It's a shallow view of how religion works in practice.
  Biblical literalism, as in, the belief that the Bible is a literal text that does not really contain metaphors and everything in it is to be taken literally and that it must be adhered to with as much precision as possible, is not a terribly commonly held position among Christians (it might also be impossible but never mind that).
  Therefore, the Bible having some passages which seems to make homophobia a rule Christians must follow is not really an argument against Christians, but an argument against Biblical literalism. Most Christians simply don't take the Bible at face value to that level of precision, most are smart enough to understand cultural and historical relativism and metaphor and coded language and translation and even interpretation errors across time. 
  There are many non-homophobic Christians and also gay Christians whether Biblical literalists  like it or not because most Christians are not biblical literalists. It's kind of as simple as that. Christians come in all sorts of tendencies.
  I mean, this could also be about how Biblical literalists are disingenuous or even just insane, because I think they are definitely the former. Leviticus also has stuff about not mixing fabrics and dietary restrictions if I remember correctly. They don't seem to follow that, therefore, they are hypocrites. But that's obvious enough and not a very effective condemnation of Christianity itself, mostly because the Bible often contradicts itself, which should be impossible if it was literally the word of God. At the very least you have to accept if it's the word of God, God put things in it that were contradictory, to confer some other kind of meaning. And homophobia contradicts with the morality of a lot of more important shit in the Bible, so, it's perfectly acceptable for Christians to not be homophobic.
  By the way, it's not the Bible that is 6000 years old, you're thinking of the approximate age of the Earth by certain wackjob creationists. I think that might be from Kent Hovind specifically in fact. >
  
  Jesus said to love our neighbors, point blank. He was asked if neighbors was literal, and He answered that the poor, the widow, the orphan, and the sick were your neighbors. So the one purity law that has been translated from Aramaic to Greek to Latin to whatever else before English doesn't hold a candle to the proclamation by God made flesh in Jesus to love and care for each other.
  So the options are to be a good Christian and be loving and kind no matter someone's orientation or to be a bad Christian and be hateful.
  The source there is reading the Gospels. >
  
  Are you saying that the line condemning homosexuals to death is mistranslated? Do you have sources for that? >
  
  It very much could be/the intent lost. The bible is written by many people over a lot of time and then translated by various different people.
  Even the first verses of the bible is translated in different ways: 7 days vs 7 “ages” vs 7 times. Sometimes eden is a place on earth, sometimes it is not specified, etc. Sometimes the snake has a name, sometimes it does not, these have other implications. >
  
  
  If you are a Christian you have the choice between being a bad person or a bad Christian when it comes to Homosexuality.
  
  
  This is only true if you believe that being a "good Christian" requires you believe the 100% literal infallible truth of the bible regardless of time period or context.  Many Christians do not believe that and still manage to follow Jesus' example in treating others with kindness, compassion, and love.  In fact, I would argue that it becomes easier to be a good person and a good Christian (that being somebody who follows the example of Jesus and strives to be "Christ like") if you accept that the Bible is not the unerring word of God, and is not 100% literal. >
  
  If it's not literal and not god's true word, why even follow it at all?
  I don't need religion to be a good person. >
  
  The Bible gives insight into the relationship between humans and God as well as insight and inspiration in one's own life. Understanding that it's not literal leads to deeper insight. When you read about Job or about Jonah you can see that you are not the only one who has struggled with such issues. It's part of human nature.
  I think, understanding how the Bible was written and what it meant at the time it was written, as well has how things have changed, makes one a better Christian, that is a better follower of Jesus the Christ.
  So back to the issue of homosexuality. In his letter to the Romans and Corinthians, Paul condemns homosexuality along with a number of other practices. He is writtng for two groups of people, Hebrew and Greek and the thrust of the argument is that both groups are sinful. He mentions the Greek things most offensive to the Hebrews, homosexuality and the Hebrew things most offensive to the Greeks, circumcision. The point of this is that all are sinful and in need of salvation. That is my understanding anyone, someone else may do a better job of explaining Paul's views. Jesus didn't speak about homosexuality . He accepted eunuchs and considered himself to be a eunuch.
  People at the time would have understood eunuchs to be basically the same as intergender.
  The Bible does celebrate some homosexual relationships, although it makes no mention of consummation.  There is Jesus and the disciple he loved, John; and there is King David and Jonathan. Also Ruth and Naomi. These were not sexual relationships(except for maybe David and Jonathan)  but they were committed relationships between people of the same sex. >
  
  
  When you read about Job or about Jonah you can see that you are not the only one who has struggled with such issues.
  
  Is the story of Jonah really a relatable example? >
  
  People find hope in the story. >
  
  I may be wrong but I don’t think anyone has made the argument that the Bible was written by God. Rather it was the word of God passed on by humans until they were documented some time after their deaths. I’ve always been interested in knowing who (church or other) determined what was and wasn’t included in the Bible. Some I’ve spoken with claim that some (not all) parts of all religious texts were added by people as a form of control and putting it under the guise of “God’s word.” Along the same lines there are many who pick and choose what parts of the Bible apply. For example a cousin of mine is one of those types who judges others and says she’s doing God’s work. Someone would tell her isn’t it God who judges and not man? She’ll acknowledge there’s a part in the Bible that says that but others that at least imply it’s okay to judge others. 
  There are a number of points in the Bible that come off contradictory. On one hand the line you pointed out is there. But on the other hand doesn’t the Bible tell us about loving others as well? Doesn’t Jesus tell us to embrace each other rather than show hate?
  As an example Timothy 2:12 could be interpreted as women being subservient to men. Should we turn society on its head and say women need to be put in their place due to that verse? >
  
  
  As an example Timothy 2:12 could be interpreted as women being subservient to men. Should we turn society on its head and say women need to be put in their place due to that verse?
  
  As a woman, oh God please no. >
  
  Truthfully that’s where I look at religious texts like the Bible more as a moral guide as opposed to a literal means of living life. Ultimately I think Jesus’ message is to show compassion toward each other. Otherwise there needs to be a talk about how slavery needs to be brought back, women need to be oppressed, and I won’t even go into what could be done with children. 
  People should also take those texts into historical context. The societal norms of the day were significantly different to today. >
  
  You can be a neutral Christian and not involve yourself. 
  Although the bible says "they must be put to death" it doesn't say one or 'you' specifically have to get your hands dirty. >
  
  I think OP would bracket that as "bad Christian" if it meant you didn't agree that they should be put to death, whether or not you're compelled to enact the punishment yourself. I have no idea how enforcement works in the Bible. >
  
  
  I think OP would bracket that as "bad Christian" if it meant you didn't agree that they should be put to death
  
  Yeah that is what I meant.
  Also I'm non-christian and LGBTQ if anyone didn't get that >
  
  Not everyone interprets the Bible literally.
  Not all Christians interpret the Bible the same. 
  Jesus pretty explicitly tells his followers that it's not their job to judge others. 
  So even if you do interpret Christianity as being against homosexuality it's not OK for you to be a bigot about it. >
  
  
  So even if you do interpret Christianity as being against homosexuality it's not OK for you to be a bigot about it.
  
  Did you misinterpret what I said as me being homophobic or am I just misunderstanding you? >
  
  I am speaking with a more generic "you" not you specifically you. >
  
  Disagree 
  As a Christian, I know that when Jesus arrived, He began a new covenant between God and man.
  He summed it up by saying that we are to love God and others. 1st John says they will know us by our love.
  It doesn’t exclude anyone 
  God is love 
  I am a well educated father of a gay son.
  Does God expect me to not love but abandon my son?
  Of course not >
  
  What if your son was gay before Jesus arrived?  If you and your son were alive in 1 B.C., and you discovered that your son had made love with another man whom he dearly cares for, would you follow God's existing law at the time (prior to the new covenant)? >
  
  Then he would be a gentile and it would not matter >
  
  According to my commentary on the Torah by Gunther Plaut, there is evidence that the text is referring to a pagan legal practice from the time (for which we have evidence) in which when a pair of men were found having sex, the “bottom” was to be forcibly castrated and made to live as a female gendered wife to the “top.” 
  This understanding of the text explains a lot. It explains why the mitzvah was given only to Israelite men (and their descendants-Jewish men) and not the women (because the problem is not homosexuality per se nor even homosexual activity). It also explains what is meant by the term “as with a woman.” It also explains why G-d would be against it, G-d tends to be against mutilation in general (except for circumcision). It also becomes a social justice issue instead of some random thing. >
  
  How many Christians don't eat pork?
  The old terstment has been almost entirely disregarded by Christians since antiquity. Jesus's teachings are completely different than the old testament, they often contradict, and even where they don't, the old testament is ignored anyway. Some protestant secs pretend to care about it, but how many of them eat Kosher?
  Your argument only works for Judaism. Christians have had an easy out since before the council of Nicea, none the less Vatican 2. >
  
  
  The old terstment has been almost entirely disregarded by Christians since antiquity.
  
  I don't believe you.  It's covered every Sunday in churches, it has its own theme parks, and Christian lawmakers in my country have based legislation on its verses for multiple centuries.  It was cited in many Ordinance of Secessions that led to our Civil War, and used to prevent abolition, civil rights, interracial marriage, gay rights, legalized abortion, and the teaching of evolution (just a few examples).  
  And those are just examples in my own country; there are  endless global examples, too -- from the Crusades to present-day Uganda.
  Can you honestly maintain your View in the face of so many examples to the contrary?  If so, describe the mental gymnastics required. >
  
  In this assertion, you make the claim that all Christians are fundamentalists and take the bible literally, word for word. I would argue that most religious people, in general, do not follow everything the bible states, rather they use it as a guide in their lives. Heck, many religious people don't even believe in the existence of god, but like to fantasize about a world that does. Also, what do you think constitutes being a "bad Christian"?  Are the Islamic fundamentalist regimes of Iran and Saudi Arabia "good muslims" because they take verses of the Quran at face value, twist it to their own agenda and terrorize their citizens with it? Most rational people would argue not. >
  
  
  In this assertion, you make the claim that all Christians are fundamentalists and take the bible literally, word for word.
  
  I mean if they really are true Christian's, they should.
  
  I would argue that most religious people, in general, do not follow everything the bible states, rather they use it as a guide in their lives. Heck, many religious people don't even believe in the existence of god, but like to fantasize about a world that does.
  
  Are they even real Christians if they don't even believe in their own religion 100%?
  
  Are the Islamic fundamentalist regimes of Iran and Saudi Arabia "good muslims" because they take verses of the Quran at face value, twist it to their own agenda and terrorize their citizens with it? Most rational people would argue not.
  
  I think what they are doing are horrible, horrible things. BUT they are following the religion they believe exactly as they are instructed, so while what they are doing is terrible, They are "good Muslims" >
  
  
  I mean if they really are true Christian's, they should.
  
  According to whom?
  If the large majority of people who consider themselves Christians think one thing isn't required to be a Christian, and you think it is, what makes you right and them wrong? >
  
  To /u/LiaTheGamer, your post is under consideration for removal under our post rules.
  You must respond substantively within 3 hours of posting, as per Rule E. >
  
  You're conflating being a "good Christian" with being a biblical literalist. More specifically, one that ignores context and culture when reading out biblical text; that's not a good idea to do with any other historically-significant document, and especially not if you're going to try to build your life around it.
  Fortunately for those of us in the faith, Jesus made it pretty easy for us, by establishing a golden rule for conduct that supersedes all others:
  
  “Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?”
  Jesus replied: “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’ This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments.”
  
  -The Gospel according to Matthew, Chapter 22, verses 36 through 40.
  If that isn't explicit enough for you, the Gospels have the benefit of being written from multiple perspectives; here are Mark and Luke's recollections of events:
  
  And behold, a lawyer stood up to put him to the test, saying, “Teacher, what shall I do to inherit eternal life?” He said to him, “What is written in the Law? How do you read it?” And he answered, “You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength and with all your mind, and your neighbor as yourself.” And he said to him, “You have answered correctly; do this, and you will live.”
  
  -Luke 10:25-28
  ​
  
  One of the teachers of the law came and heard them debating. Noticing that Jesus had given them a good answer, he asked him, “Of all the commandments, which is the most important?”
  “The most important one,” answered Jesus, “is this: ‘Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is one. Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength.’ The second is this: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ There is no commandment greater than these.”
  “Well said, teacher,” the man replied. “You are right in saying that God is one and there is no other but him. To love him with all your heart, with all your understanding and with all your strength, and to love your neighbor as yourself is more important than all burnt offerings and sacrifices.”
  When Jesus saw that he had answered wisely, he said to him, “You are not far from the kingdom of God.” And from then on no one dared ask him any more questions.
  
  -Mark 12:28-34
  (Emphasis mine.)
  ​
  That makes it pretty clear what constitutes being a "bad Christian"; failing to love God or your neighbors. All the lip service and quotations and ceremonial hoop-jumping in the world doesn't make a difference if you don't have that part down.
  It's a sentiment that gets repeated frequently in the epistles; Paul's letters to the early church makes it very clear that self-righteous posturing doesn't impress God. Presumably, that would include a literal adhesion to older writings despite their obvious inapplicability, and even more so if that means being less-than-loving to homosexual people. >
  
  The Bible is a mythical book, much like Harry Potter or The Hobbit. It was written by people not God. It is not the word of God. Someone decided to tell people it was the word of God. And people believed it.  
  Outside of the stories in the Bible there is no evidence there is an all seeing being named God , that if you are good blesses you and if you are bad scorns you. It is mind control. Save yourself some trouble, throw it in the trash and live your life to the fullest and make yourself happy. It’s a short ride. When it is done it is done Forever, there is no after life. Love while you’ve got the chance. Whoever that may be. 
  Are you going to tell me that tribes that live in remote parts of Africa who have never heard of God are going to go to a place called hell because they haven’t ever heard of a person named Christ? 
  If you want to be good be good, if you want to be bad be bad , there will be no consequences from God. ( Don’t be bad though, you know what I mean). 
  Sorry to hear that you have been burdened with such lies. I hope this helps. ☮️ >
  
  I went to catholic school and here’s how the priests phrased it:
  Sex is a sacred act that gives life and should be respected.  It’s the ultimate live creating act that should be within the bounds of a marriage. 
  It’s not some thing for porn and prostitutes and cheating. Anything outside of marriage is disrespectful and you should control your urges. 
  In that context, homosexual sex is no worse than any sex act outside of marriage. It’s on par with masturbation, premarital sex, porn, strip clubs, and any other lustful activity.   So unless you’re ready to judge all of those acts equally harshly, don’t judge gay people. >
  
  Option 3: The bible was divinely inspired by God, but written down by fallible humans who can and have made mistakes. >
  
  Not to derail the conversation, but why would God allow an imperfect rendering of his words? Do we not then apply the same logic to the entire book, rendering it completely gutless and subject to the natural whims of the reader entirely? I think OP's point is that, hey, there's this line that is pretty much unambiguous. That's a problem if you think the Bible is sacred. If you don't, it's not an interesting book. >
  
  I dunno, why would God allow any evil whatsoever? >
  
  Because "free will matters" according to every Christian I've ever said this too.
  So basically: "People should be allowed to Rape, Torture, Bully, Let people die, and Kill people because "everyone deserves free will" ... yikes. And yes, God supposedly thinks these are bad things and you go to hell for them but guess what?
  He allows it in the first place, which IMO outweighs the "good" of eventually punishing the evil people. >
  
  Then if god allows those things, it shouldn't be hard to think that god will also allow getting the Bible wrong. >
  
  That's pretty messed up >
  
  People have been arguing Theodicy for hundreds of years for a reason. >
  
  Some interpretations of the New Testament say that it negates stuff like this from the Old one. That would be a way to justify it. That's why they can eat pork and wear mixed-fabrics too.
  Also, God forgives imperfect people, so how 'bad' can they be? >
  
  One of the cool features of all religions is that it's all made up and there are no actual consequences for doing it "wrong". So Christians are perfectly free to pick and choose what they want to believe just as they have done for 2000+/- years. >
  
  Hey buddy, that sort of talk is against the rules! I’m reporting you to my priest! 😂. You have to argue within the confines of the vague multi-translated fever dreams of medieval shepards or you’re living wrong. >
  
  Sorry, u/LiaTheGamer – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 5: 
  
  Comments must contribute meaningfully to the conversation.  
  
  Comments should be on-topic, serious, and contain enough content to move the discussion forward. Jokes, contradictions without explanation, links without context, off-topic comments, and "written upvotes" will be removed. Read the wiki for more information.  
  If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted. >
  
  Why do you want your view changed? >
  
  Idk I'm just curious if anyone can change my view tbh. >
  
  when taking a step back, men sexing each other is a little odd. after all, it is an exit hole not an entry hole. it's technically maladaptive. maybe don't throw stones though >
  
  I mean where else on a male body is an entry hole?
  Well maybe you could count the mouth as one... >
  
  correct. and nostrils are both. there's nothing about gay sex that is an achievement >
  
  how are you coming to the conclusion that anything is an 'entry' or 'exit' hole? because things go in it or out of it? >
  
  Actually aren't vaginas exit holes for babies? But entrances for a penis? It's kinda both, the entrance/exit argument is pointless >
  
  yeah it's pointless but i'm just trying to teach an evolution and philosophy lesson to a random redditor through socratic questioning 
  (with minimal expectations of success) >
  
  an evolution lesson? 200 generations of fathers.... some would have been gay. you're alive because? >
  
  So pork ribs and  letting the wife in the house during her period are sins? >
  
  I don't think that. but if the Bible says it, yep! It is for Christian's.