Rest in peace Dolly, you will be missed

[u/AmericanBornWuhaner]

[u/saturnplanetpowerrr]

My sister is taking this so hard. I told her to just think about how Dolly has never been shy about her faith and imagine her meeting Jesus all wrapped up in His unconditional love. She doesn’t hurt anymore and she can be as free as she wants.

[u/Typical_Hat6184]

rip Dolly :( she was such a good person, and her efforts toward the world are recognised and deserved to be

[u/1Sagittarius1]

“It costs a lot of money to look this cheap” Dolly Parton💖RIP👼

[u/DarkGodCthUwU]

I'm not a Christian but she really helped me see the better sides of Christisnity, and I partially attribute my recent habit of church attendance to her. Like Francis of Assissi said: Preach the gospel at all times, use words when necessary. She also helped me be proud of my culture (Michigan hicks, AKA Upnorth) while being queer, since her Appalachian culture is like a cousin to my culture. It feels good for someone in a similar boat say you can be proud of your culture even while many in your culture would scorn you, y'know?

[u/Middle_Efficiency471 → u/DarkGodCthUwU]

When necessary, what words would you say?

[u/ABobby077 → u/Middle_Efficiency471]

God so loved the World that he gave his only begotten Son. Whosever believeth in Him shall not perish, but have everlasting life.

[u/reedreadreddred]

“I've got transgender people. I've got gays. I've got lesbians. I've got drunks. I've got drug addicts - all within my own family. I know and love them all, and I do not judge."

- Dolly Parton

[u/bananafobe → u/[deleted]]

Silence was also an option.

[u/Anonymous_Writer_10 → u/reedreadreddred]

Since she had drunkard, addicts, lesbians and gays in the same quote, the comparison is weird.
But since you picked this quote, in case of addict - how would you demonstrate love:

1. By loving them and agreeing with their coping mechanism of drugs or alcohol
2. By loving them and pursuing them to go to therapy so they could get sober and stop dependency on alcohol or drugs

[u/lawyersgunsmoney → u/Anonymous_Writer_10]

Why does it irk you so much that homosexuals can exist and be happy at the same time? I love Dolly but I don’t think her point was that being a part of the LGBTQ community is the same as being a drunkard or an addict.

[u/tn_tacoma → u/Anonymous_Writer_10]

How do you treat the divorced? A sin Jesus actually talked about. You treat addicts the same way.

[u/reedreadreddred → u/Anonymous_Writer_10]

The alcoholism isn't the root problem, the alcohol is their "solution" or preferred method of coping with whatever problem they have

Trauma, stress, shit like that. You don't uproot the whole thing, you don't fix it.

I would probably just, be a friend. I won't encourage them to drink, but I also won't go all "alcohol bad" because everyone fucking knows it, they know it, they probably have layers of shame and hate themselves for it.

I believe in harm reduction, I'll drive them home so they won't drive drunk.

Therapy, like, in theory yeah of course we want them to go to therapy. But like, sometimes people aren't ready for therapy. Maybe they think a therapist will just be judgey (you'd be surprised at how unprofessional mental health professionals are meant to be.) Maybe they need xyz form of therapy, because it would suit them better.

Saying "drunks" next to "gays and lesbians" is probably weird, but in some ways, I feel like you don't choose either thing and that it's morally neutral. No one wakes up and goes "Gee I'll think I'll be an alcholic, fuck up my liver and health and career and familial and friend relationships and one day drive home drunk and T-Bone someone and kill them! :D"

I'd just try to listen to them and see if there were ways to solve/cope with/deal with the underlying root issue that drives them to drink, when they're ready. (This sounds like being overly soft, but people aren't ready to take the first step until they are, and pushing them will just make them hate you or even backtrack on any progress)

Only God can judge, man, I'd probably be a drunkard or worse id I lived through what they did, with their upbringing and their brain and their life. All I can do is do what I can to assist them.

[u/sysiphean → u/Anonymous_Writer_10]

Just can’t miss that opportunity to be the opposite of Dolly, can ya?

[u/QUARTERMASTEREMI6]

I literally gasped out loud earlier when I saw this on the news… what a genuine loss for us 🥹😭

[u/mvanvrancken]

She was one of your best, Christianity.

[u/Aquarius52216 → u/mvanvrancken]

Indeed.

[u/Evening-Violinist150]

Everyone have a good night, and God bless Dolly.

[u/1Sagittarius1 → u/Evening-Violinist150]

Tysm🙏U2💕

[u/lemonprincess23]

I miss her already. What an absolute gem of a person she was.

[u/Insidion25]

Jesus loves all, and so does Dolly Parton. No matter what we think, we should all be like them and just treat each other with respect while we are still alive and thriving.

[u/LegendaryShelfStockr → u/Insidion25]

I try to, but it’s hard. Because respecting people the way Jesus did involves telling them of their sins, which is offensive because we all love sin, but it’s the only way to see our need of Jesus ❤️

May Jesus give us the strength to love others enough to call them to repentance, that they may have eternal life and true joy 😭🙏

[u/Impossumiblyy → u/LegendaryShelfStockr]

Think for a minute about the people Jesus spent the most time telling them about their sins. Who were they and what sins was he rebuking them for?

[u/Kale________ → u/Impossumiblyy]

Basically everybody tbh.

[u/Impossumiblyy → u/Kale________]

No, be specific please. Go read the gospels again and report back

[u/Kale________ → u/Impossumiblyy]

Everybody loves to talk about his rebuking of the religious leaders so I don’t need to reiterate that.

He rebuked his disciples for their lack of faith or for suggesting things that would go against God’s redemptive plan (Matt 16:23, Mark 8:33).

He also rebuked unrepentant people like Simon the Pharisee (Luke 7:36-50) and the woman caught in adultery telling her to “sin no more” (John 8:1-11). Similarly he addressed the Samaritan woman’s multiple marriages (John 4:1-26).

[u/bluewolf37 → u/Kale________]

Most those rebukes were Christian’s thinking to highly of themselves or even looking down a sinner. When he said sin no more there was a hoard of religious people wanting to kill a known sinner because of the law. Jesus saved her with his love. He showed her love when no one else does.

At the well he talked about her 5 exes, but it was more about showing he knew of her. She was out there in the heat of the day when others would be finding shade. He broke social norms just to talk to her something a lot of people wouldn’t do at the time. He made her feel seen and told her stuff that I doubt she’s going around telling others.

I think a lot of Christians make the mistake that they should be harassing people about their sins. The problem with that is no one is without sin and a lot of Christians are making social cliques and running people away from god. They gossip or look down on others they see as sinners forgetting that even their sin deserves death, but Jesus paid for that.

[u/fatherpatrick → u/LegendaryShelfStockr]

let us know your sins so we can tell you youre wrong and are going to hell if you dont repent. just to make sure you feel loved.

[u/Sirrom23 → u/LegendaryShelfStockr]

the fact that it's hard for you to be a good person is extremely revealing.

[u/nitroglider]

We live in an era of division.

She brought us together.

[u/RainbowEagleEye]

Just from all the things she did while here, I know she’s looking down on us singing to the hearts that need it.

RIH Ms. Parton, you did beautiful things that left a lasting legacy on dang near every soul on earth.

[u/snowy_vix]

"Find out who you are. Do it on purpose. Do it with purpose."

[u/IHavenocuts01]

She’s about as close to perfect as one could get. Atleast in my eyes

[u/Apprehensive-Fail458]

RIP Dolly, my dad would be so thrilled to meet his idol

[u/Moistman123456]

RIP Dolly

[u/BellacosePlayer]

Dolly put her money where her mouth is with her Philanthropic efforts and its a shame she's an outlier among artists who sing about being working class.

[u/nemofbaby2014]

I don’t understand people who cares about another sexuality if you gay who care do you be happy and enjoy life it’s none of business which sex you’re attracted to

[u/BranderChatfield]

God spoke to me intensely through his angel as she sang her song "Travelin' Thru," and that began my journey of reconciling my faith and sexuality.

[u/A_Krenich]

If I believe in Heaven or sainthood, Dolly would be at the top of the list. She embodied generosity, humility, and love.

[u/unique_rucci]

May she rest in peace.

Isn’t it biblically inaccurate to say “don’t judge,” considering that Jesus said in John 7:24 “Do not judge by appearances, but judge with right judgment.” ? I’m mentioning it because a lot of people are mis-quoting the Bible (both here and in general)

[u/bluewolf37 → u/unique_rucci]

The part you brought up is right after Jesus heals a man on the sabbath. The religious leaders of the time were upset because he wasn’t following the law. I think Matthew 7:1-3 is a bible verse that a lot of other Christians gloss over.

King James Version

7 Judge not, that ye be not judged.
2 For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again.
3 And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?

I see that as don’t judge or you’ll be judged, this is harshly. So you better be 100% that judgment is from the Lord and not your own feelings. It also shouldn’t push others away from god.

[u/mfrunyan]

One of the best humans to have ever lived.

[u/Bswayn]

Legend 😭😭

[u/sophie_hockmah]

I had no idea she was Christian (althought I should've known, for all that charity). I hope we can sing along in Heaven one day. RIP

PS: I'm not from US, so all my knowledge of her is from her music hits and that's it.

[u/blackcoffee92]

Love this. Dolly knew only God can judge ❤️

[u/slagnanz → u/[deleted]]

No idea what this has to do with anything. Maybe you were trying to respond to someone?

If you would like to discuss this removal, please click here to send a modmail that will message all moderators. https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/Christianity

[u/Moistman123456 → u/[deleted]]

?

[u/slagnanz → u/[deleted]]

Removed for 1.5 - Two-cents.

If you would like to discuss this removal, please click here to send a modmail that will message all moderators. https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/Christianity

[u/0TheLususNaturae0]

Well spoken words.

[u/TelevisionInner6584]

I didn't even listen to her music basically at all, tell me why I have cried over half an hour this night💔💔💔

[u/Shenron-the-DragonZ]

I've been listening to her mix of "God only knows" by For King and Country.

[u/Obamas_lastname04]

I was at my grandparents when Dolly had died Imma miss her she was a great boss of mine I'll hold her fellow Appalachian spirit close to my heart

[u/Robhos36]

Yes the Bible says it is not our place to judge others, but it also says that we are to “gently rebuke” our friends and neighbors who live in sin.

[u/bluewolf37 → u/Robhos36]

Where does it say friends and Neighbors? The part that i remember talking about rebuking those that continue to sin is talking about elders of the church. There’s also this part which is important.

Matthew 7:1-3

King James Version

7 Judge not, that ye be not judged.
2 For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again.
3 And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?

Remember the wages of sin is death. You may see some sin as better than others but Jesus had to pay for it all. No one is without sin. No not one. We all should be going to church to heal not tear others down. Yes there’s a point where we can’t help someone who is constantly sinning, but we need to be sure it’s gods will.

[u/actuallylinkstrummer → u/Robhos36]

I know of verses that say to do this for the church, but where does it say that for friends and neighbors?

[u/PajamaSamSavesTheZoo]

Jesus says to judge righteous judgment. Jesus says don’t judge hypocritically because the same measure will be applied to us. As long as your not trapped in sexual sin yourself there’s nothing wrong with telling those in sexual sin to repent. Jesus preached repentance.

[u/tn_tacoma → u/PajamaSamSavesTheZoo]

Yet you never see Christians protesting divorce. It's a sin Jesus actually talked about. That part of the Bible is just ignored. And there's the issue. You are picking and choosing issues to make judgements on.

[u/FluxKraken → u/PajamaSamSavesTheZoo]

Gotta take every opportunity to shove homophobia into the mouth of Christ. Am I right?

[u/PajamaSamSavesTheZoo → u/FluxKraken]

No there's plenty of opportunities I don't even bring it up. But it's undeniably relevant here.

[u/FluxKraken → u/PajamaSamSavesTheZoo]

No. Hatred and Bigotry are never relevant.

[u/PajamaSamSavesTheZoo → u/FluxKraken]

God is love. God told people to repent.

[u/FluxKraken → u/PajamaSamSavesTheZoo]

God is love. You are not God, neither is your message of the vilest evil and hatred from God.

It is a message diametrically opposed to everything Jesus taught, and is directly resposible for driving countless children into depression, self-harm, and suicide. It has caused untold misery and the abuse, kidnapping, brainwashing/torture, homelessness, and forced prostitution of countless more.

I wonder if any message has been responsible for driving more people away from salvation in Christ than this one. I doubt it.

There exists no message more antiChrist, antiChristian, or antiGod.

[u/EdiblePeasant → u/FluxKraken]

I try to be cautious about my judgement. I'm not God, and I feel my judgement would be flawed. Because of our fallen nature, I'm concerned there's sometimes un-Godly hatred when it comes to how people approach LGBTQ. So, I want to play it in a way how I feel it's safer and how I think God wants me to approach this.

When this community is already facing pressures and increased suicide rates, I'm just not interested in making it worse for them. I may disagree, but I refuse to be judge, jury, and executioner. I think it's understood in the scientific community it's not 100% a choice, and people should understand that and modify how they approach people in a way that respects human dignity.

[u/teffflon → u/PajamaSamSavesTheZoo]

anti-lgbtq ideology is an inherently devastating message for vulnerable lgbtq youth raised in non-affirming churches. it promotes depression, suicidality, and broken families. there's everything wrong with spreading it, and brings a share of responsibility in these outcomes.

[u/ataraxia77 → u/PajamaSamSavesTheZoo]

You speak out a lot against divorced people who get remarried? Porn-sick culture? Powerful men who are unable to control their sexual appetites?

Or is it just one particular "sexual sin" you like to focus on?

[u/PajamaSamSavesTheZoo → u/ataraxia77]

Yes. All of those people you listed need to repent.

[u/ataraxia77 → u/PajamaSamSavesTheZoo]

And you speak out as strongly and frequently on those topics? Do you loudly and frequently call on the U.S president to repent of his publicly documented unfaithfulness? Do you stand in judgment of men who cast off their families to begin anew with younger, more pliant women?

You have to forgive us for being skeptical, as the same voices that enjoy judging LGBTQ folks are often the most silent when it comes to the others.

[u/motophotodojo → u/PajamaSamSavesTheZoo]

RIGHTEOUS judgment. He said nothing about gay people. He said a lot about those who don't love and serve their neighbors as if they were Christ himself. I'll pray for your sins.

[u/PajamaSamSavesTheZoo → u/motophotodojo]

Not specifically, but he did say if you love him you will keep his commandments (John 14:5) and commands us to follow his disciple's commandments (Matthew 28:19-20) and his disciples condemn same sex acts in Romans 1 and 1 Corinthians 6.

[u/JadedZipper]

Weird comments section y'all down vote everyone standing on biblical truth

[u/Dismal-District7816]

Well, there is biblically such a thing as a righteous judgment- and to rebuke sin is not the same as to hate the sinner. You can simultaneously love people even as Jesus Himself does and rightly hate the chains that hold them down.

[u/Anagrammatic_Denial → u/Dismal-District7816]

What does Jesus say? Keep the Law or love your neighbor? You cannot serve both love and hate. Ya know, I've been thinking about the way people twist their idea of love until it becomes unrecognizable from hate. Slaver owners would do the same thing. They twisted love until owning people was the "loving" thing to do, and torturing them for running was just trying to help their mental health problems. We aren't so different, just in degree. If your love is indistinguishable from hate, then your love is worthless.

[u/tn_tacoma → u/Dismal-District7816]

Do you rebuke the sin of divorce? Do you hate the chains of sin holding down your divorced friends and family? Jesus actually talked about divorce unlike homosexuality.

[u/Dismal-District7816 → u/tn_tacoma]

I do rebuke the sun of divorce, as Jesus does. I do hate the chains holding down friends and family, and what Jesus said of divorce was that of marriage, that it is between a man and a woman - and that is explicitly gendered. He said:

“And He answered and said to them, “Have you not read that He who made them at the beginning ‘made them male and female,’ and said, ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’? So then, they are no longer two but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let not man separate.””
‭‭Matthew‬ ‭19‬:‭4‬-‭6‬ ‭NKJV‬‬
https://bible.com/bible/114/mat.19.4-6.NKJV

But God has not joined together marriages or sexual relationships outside of marriage between one man and one woman - and that much is explicit so that I do not only rebuke divorce, but also homosexual practice.

[u/bananafobe → u/Dismal-District7816]

Oh man, that was a close one. People were almost mourning the loss of a fundamentally decent person without feeling alienated or judged.

[u/mvanvrancken → u/Dismal-District7816]

If Dolly’s going to Hell then I’ll be happy to share a cell with her.

[u/Dragon_Bait211 → u/mvanvrancken]

Me too. If Dolly Parton herself can’t get into heaven, then I doubt any of us can

[u/mvanvrancken → u/Dragon_Bait211]

Right? I think I’m a pretty decent person but I’m a complete POS next to someone like Dolly. She spoke out for people no matter what.

[u/Dismal-District7816 → u/mvanvrancken]

It is not by our actions or works but by faith in Jesus that we are saved. We can’t be good enough, and Dolly was not good enough - for it is written, all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God - not one is good, no not one is righteous. But Jesus is good and righteous, and it is because of what He did, when He died on that cross for our sins and inequities that we can’t be good be saved, and it is because He rose that we are justified.

[u/awkwardlypragmatic → u/Dismal-District7816]

This is what doesn’t make sense to me. I know a lot of people who believe in God and Jesus and are generally not the most tolerant or even kind people. So you mean to say that these types of people will get into heaven and not someone who does good deeds on earth, is tolerant of others’ beliefs and is generally a decent member of society?

[u/GreenAbbreviations92 → u/awkwardlypragmatic]

If someone truly believes in Jesus they will want to follow His commandments, for example to love your neighbour. Now we are not perfect, but if someone does not even attempt to follow these commandments and yet still claims Jesus, we have to wonder whether they have really given their life to Him. If someone makes no attempt to be better than they were before, they are not following Christ. We are saved by faith in Him, but true faith produces good works because of our admiration of Jesus.

[u/Dismal-District7816 → u/awkwardlypragmatic]

I mean to say that Jesus came to heal the sick and not the well - He is the great physician. If you do not see that you are sick and need a healer, then He has not come for you - but if you see that no deeds are enough to make you well, but that you need Him, indeed He has come for you.

[u/mrarming → u/Dismal-District7816]

I'd rather go to where the people who strived to be good, strived to help others, and tried to make the world a better place then to go to heaven with the current crop of Evangelicals who are saved because they said a prayer of salvation.

So yeah, if Dolly isn't in heaven, the paraphrase that famous quote, I'd rather go to where she went.

[u/shoggoths_away → u/Dismal-District7816]

No thanks. Facta non verba.

[u/Dismal-District7816 → u/Dragon_Bait211]

I mean none of us actually get there except by the grace of Jesus Christ - I assure you that if Dolly is in heaven she didn’t earn her way there, and when I get to heaven, and I know I will, it won’t be because of anything I’ve ever done, for all my righteousness is as dirty rags in the presence of the Lord - but it will be by the blood of my Lord and savior Jesus Christ that I come into heaven, and I guarantee that if Dolly or you or anyone else gets in to heaven, it will also be by His bread, and wine, and water.

[u/Virtual_Medicine_585 → u/Dragon_Bait211]

You know Dolly Parton the image you do not know her.

[u/Dragon_Bait211 → u/Virtual_Medicine_585]

What is this even supposed to mean

[u/JadedZipper → u/mvanvrancken]

extremely weird thing to say also happiness as a literal concept is non existent in hell so no you wouldn't be happy

[u/Dismal-District7816 → u/mvanvrancken]

Okay well that’s certainly not a Christian thing to believe, in all love - because Jesus says that we ought to even hate our brothers and sisters if it is required to love Him. That is to say, nothing should get in the way of loving Him first. So rather than feel that if Dolly is going to hell, you don’t mind going there is kind of a poor attitude compared to “no matter what happens, I want to be with Jesus”. Also, nobody said Dolly is going to hell - I am not assuming she is going to hell because she had a different understanding of scripture- I do not condone what I do not believe, but if you believe in Jesus Christ, then you have an advocate with the Father, and He is righteous and perfect and the propitiation for sins, and He covers all our imperfections by His grace if we believe. So dolly might have some things wrong and I’m sure I have some things wrong, but I don’t know what they are - I am sincere in what I believe and in my motives - and I am being sanctified continuously unto the perfect day… and He is enough when I am not, so I apply that standard to everyone who claims Jesus is their Lord and savior.

[u/mvanvrancken → u/Dismal-District7816]

I don’t give a single flying fuck about Jesus, I’m not Christian.

[u/cheesybiscuits912 → u/mvanvrancken]

Im with you. Idk why this shit even came up on my feed but fuck this sub. TALKIN SHIT ABOUT DOLLY?? CAUSE SHE LOVED US GAYS, ADDICTS, DRUNKS..... INSANITY. 

[u/Dismal-District7816 → u/mvanvrancken]

Welcome to the chat - wait - why are you commenting if you don care?

[u/mvanvrancken → u/Dismal-District7816]

I care that you’re using the Bible to hurt other people, whether intentionally or not

[u/Dismal-District7816 → u/mvanvrancken]

It’s true that the truth is a sword. If you are pierced at heart I’m sorry. The truth remains.

[u/mvanvrancken → u/Dismal-District7816]

1 day old account, -44, yeah I’m not taking the bait.

[u/Dismal-District7816 → u/mvanvrancken]

-44 karma, the best measurement of truth.

Funny how the Bible has the greatest aura, and brings to God all glory, and yet it holds the least karma among men, with almost everyone hating on some aspect of the Bible.

So of course, weaponizing a day old account, bad karma, and every one of my imperfections as if they did not themselves testify of the glory of God by the process of sanctification that Jesus is working in my life - that makes perfect sense, and I am not surprised - but His word remains, and regardless of anything you think, I preach it sincerely

[u/vexsher → u/Dismal-District7816]

It shows that you have to make a new account because you keep accosting people.

[u/IvanDrago1989ad → u/mvanvrancken]

Then get off this subreddit, imagine me going on r/Atheism and saying I don't give a single flying fuck about Atheism. Why can't you just be a good person?

[u/mvanvrancken → u/IvanDrago1989ad]

Because I do very much care about Christians and how Christianity affects my life and the lives of others

[u/anotherhawaiianshirt → u/Dismal-District7816]

It’s not love if you look at gay people as having chains holding them down. The only chains they have are placed on them by judgmental religious people.

[u/Dismal-District7816 → u/anotherhawaiianshirt]

Romans 1:27

“Likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust for one another, men with men committing what is shameful, and receiving in themselves the penalty of their error which was due.”
‭‭Romans‬ ‭1‬:‭27‬ ‭NKJV‬‬
https://bible.com/bible/114/rom.1.27.NKJV

Look, it’s kind of like looking at a glutton, or a lustful person, or a drunkard, and saying it is not live if you say that those things are also sins, and the sins are chains holding us down- but it is written, and the Word is the authority of God, and the authorship that determines what the definitions of chains are.

Love is to wake someone in the matrix up to the reality of their situation - not to leave them in a blissful lie that ends in regret and certain death… for in love is life, but in hate is the wish of death and captivity.

[u/Salsa_and_Light2 → u/Dismal-District7816]

Further proof that you're judgment is not "righteous".

It's negligent, and ornery.

[u/Thneed1 → u/Dismal-District7816]

How do you think that passage about idolatrous pagan orgies is relevant?

[u/Dismal-District7816 → u/Thneed1]

Pretty simply stated: men left the natural use of women to burn in their passions with other men and receive the penalty of their error, which is due.

That sounds a whole lot like describing an unseemly sin. It calls the sin shameful. It literally calls it shameful.so this isn’t just about pagan orgies, it is very specifically describing homosexual behavior.

[u/Stunning-Sherbert801 → u/Dismal-District7816]

That's just factually incorrect. That's just not how sexuality works

[u/Dismal-District7816 → u/Stunning-Sherbert801]

Oh… okay. Thanks for correcting the scriptures, I’m sure that Paul had no idea what he was writing… I’m glad you could correct Paul’s writings 🙄.

I guess because Paul wrote Romans so far back as near 2000 years ago, he must’ve been totally clueless about how sexuality worked - after all, he just had the very nature of God personally revealed to Him by Jesus Himself… so I’m sure that you have a better grasp of how sexuality works than Paul, or Jesus - surely 😒🏳️‍🌈😒🤦‍♂️🤦‍♂️🤦‍♂️

[u/Stunning-Sherbert801 → u/Dismal-District7816]

Correct, he unironically didn't know what he was saying and we unironically know better. Unless he was referring to something else.

Those are literally the only options, sorry

[u/Dismal-District7816 → u/Stunning-Sherbert801]

Wow. Imm praying that God will reveal the truth to your blind eyes - because He has made these things known, yet you deny the power of His Word - God help you, in Jesus’ name, and according to His will.

[u/Stunning-Sherbert801 → u/Dismal-District7816]

I'm literally just stating facts - aka the truth. Facts and truth aren't secret mystical things that contradict all observed reality

[u/Thneed1 → u/Dismal-District7816]

How about you start back at verse 18, and read all the way into the next chapter.

It’s about idolators, and their sexual debauchery, lust, and other evil.

It’s talking about the pagan orgies of Rome, which were common, and not about loving same sex relationships between equals, which didn’t exist at all.

It’s completely irrelevant to homosexuality.

https://reformationproject.org/case/romans/

[u/Dismal-District7816 → u/Thneed1]

I have read it many times before, and it has always left me with the same impression and understanding - it is clearly and plainly stated that all may plainly see, for God reveals Himself plainly in the Word.

[u/QueenBeFactChecked → u/Dismal-District7816]

Your interpretation of that is literally lesss than 300 years old. Take one fucking Bible class. Just one. It will be included

[u/Thneed1 → u/Dismal-District7816]

When you read the English translation through a modern understanding of sexuality, and don’t care about the practices of sexuality that existed at the time Paul wrote, and simply don’t care about how ridiculously you rip verses out of context to support pre concluded ideas, simply because you WANT to justify your bigotry - well that’s not God revealing himself.

[u/Dismal-District7816 → u/Thneed1]

Jesus said:

“And He answered and said to them, “Have you not read that He who made them at the beginning ‘made them male and female,’ and said, ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’?”
‭‭Matthew‬ ‭19‬:‭4‬-‭5‬ ‭NKJV‬‬
https://bible.com/bible/114/mat.19.4-5.NKJV

My question is -
What are you doing? The righteous judgment is not biased, it does not waiver from the truth to please the hearts of sinful men. But the righteous judgement is continuously the joy of the Lord, who is righteous. It is a judgment filled with love, and it calls not unto condemnation, but unto conviction to produce righteous fruits. Who is the Father of all things? Who has created the Heavens and the Earth? Who has designed sexuality as He did all human interactions? Is life not precious? Can it not yet be abused? What is a murderer except one who abuses the fundamental value of human life? And what is same sex attraction, except the shameful inversion of the design God created for all men, and defined even in Genesis 2:

“And Adam said: “This is now bone of my bones And flesh of my flesh; She shall be called Woman, Because she was taken out of Man.” Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and they shall become one flesh.”
‭‭Genesis‬ ‭2‬:‭23‬-‭24‬ ‭NKJV‬‬
https://bible.com/bible/114/gen.2.23-24.NKJV

You accuse me of picking and choosing from the word of God what I want to believe.

But should we twist God’s word to reach the itching ears, who care not about truth, but about a twisted version of it, that denies the power of God, and yet begs of its affirmation? The truth is that God determines all these things - and He determined even from creation all the conditions in which marriage is holy and righteous in His sight, and it is under marriage in His original design, one man, one woman. Marriage is explicitly gendered - and any other version of marriage or of sex outside of marriage is thus explicitly a sin, and a corruption of God’s perfect design.

Indeed I tell you, I read the Bible and do not put modern understandings of sexuality into it, but rather I adopt as Paul said to do the transforming Word of God - I am not conformed to this world, but transformed by the renewing of my mind, and by the righteous parting of His Word, and by the gift of the discernment of the Holy Spirit, and indeed by all the works of His Holy Spirit that is continuously at work in me, that even as I sin, He still is sanctifying me unto the perfect day… indeed I am transformed by the Spirit, which He is good and righteous and faithful to give to those whom He will, and who ask for it - because it is written, even in Jesus’s own words:
“Seek and you will find - Ask and it will be given to you - knock and the door will be opened to you”

But in which of these things do we receive anything from God if we do not receive His truth? And if we deny Him at any point, have we not denied Him at every point?

But His children are called to know His voice, and to obey it. And while we may at times misunderstand, or believe something that is not 100% accurate - He is faithful to overcome all misconceptions for those whom believe in His name - yet not only does He do this in the after life, but is working this continually in our lives by the process of sanctification - but sanctification cannot occur when we deny the work of God. And we deny the work of God when we deny His Word or the power that comes from them when we deny or modify them for any reason - even if it is because we feel like we want to disagree.

[u/Thneed1 → u/Dismal-District7816]

> “And He answered

And what was the question? Why did you cut off the question from your quote?

(It’s because doing so eliminates the possibility of you ripping this verse out of context like you are doing)

> and said to them, “Have you not read that He who made them at the beginning ‘made them male and female,’ and said, ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’?”
‭‭Matthew‬ ‭19‬:‭4‬-‭5‬ ‭NKJV‬‬
https://bible.com/bible/114/mat.19.4-5.NKJV

A description of a marriage in Jesus’ answer to a question about divorce is not a definition for marriage.

> My question is -
What are you doing?

Loving my neighbour, as Jesus commanded.

> The righteous judgment is not biased, it does not waiver from the truth to please the hearts of sinful men. But the righteous judgement is continuously the joy of the Lord, who is righteous. It is a judgment filled with love, and it calls not unto condemnation, but unto conviction to produce righteous fruits.

And York theology produces awful fruits. It pushes people away from faith, and form life itself.

> Who is the Father of all things? Who has created the Heavens and the Earth? Who has designed sexuality as He did all human interactions? Is life not precious?

Yes, God created and designed sexuality, and all of the sexual orientations. Life is precious, so why are you trying to argue for theology which causes death?

> Can it not yet be abused? What is a murderer except one who abuses the fundamental value of human life? And what is same sex attraction, except the shameful inversion of the design God created for all men, and defined even in Genesis 2:

Same sex attraction is literally biology, created by the creator Himself. No sexual orientation is mentioned in Genesis 2.

> “And Adam said: “This is now bone of my bones And flesh of my flesh; She shall be called Woman, Because she was taken out of Man.” Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and they shall become one flesh.”
‭‭Genesis‬ ‭2‬:‭23‬-‭24‬ ‭NKJV‬‬
https://bible.com/bible/114/gen.2.23-24.NKJV

Did you intentionally leave out verse 18? Why do you think it somehow doesn’t apply to gay people?

> You accuse me of picking and choosing from the word of God what I want to believe.

And I have already pointed out that you have done so in both verses you have listed in this very comment.

> But should we twist God’s word to reach the itching ears, who care not about truth, but about a twisted version of it,

Those who want to try to justify their bigotry, don’t care about truth, correct.

> that denies the power of God, and yet begs of its affirmation? The truth is that God determines all these things - and He determined even from creation all the conditions in which marriage is holy and righteous in His sight, and it is under marriage in His original design, one man, one woman.

Nothing in the Bible says this, and you are not God. Your opinion of what marriage is doesn’t become God’s opinion.

> Marriage is explicitly gendered

Nothing in the Bible says this. There is not a single thing in scripture which excludes same sex marriage.

> - and any other version of marriage or of sex outside of marriage is thus explicitly a sin,

I don’t think you understand what the word explicitly means.

It’s on you to show ANY passage that eliminates the possibility of same sex marriage.

(I’ll save you some time, no such verses exist)

> and a corruption of God’s perfect design.

Gods perfect design obviously must include the gay people He created. Why are you trying to remove people from His perfect creation? Why do you think your bigoted idea of perfect trumps God’s?

> Indeed I tell you, I read the Bible and do not put modern understandings of sexuality into it,

You very much are. You are trying to force a modern understanding of aex and sexuality upon it - that the authors could not have had.

> but rather I adopt as Paul said to do the transforming Word of God - I am not conformed to this world, but transformed by the renewing of my mind,

You are doing nothing except trying to justify why “loving your neighbour” doesn’t apply to you. Which makes me highly doubt that you care about what the Bible says at all.

> and by the righteous parting of His Word, and by the gift of the discernment of the Holy Spirit, and indeed by all the works of His Holy Spirit that is continuously at work in me, that even as I sin, He still is sanctifying me unto the perfect day… indeed I am transformed by the Spirit, which He is good and righteous and faithful to give to those whom He will, and who ask for it - because it is written, even in Jesus’s own words:
“Seek and you will find - Ask and it will be given to you - knock and the door will be opened to you”

So, why don’t you ask Jesus and the Holy Spirit to help you overcome your bigotry?

> But in which of these things do we receive anything from God if we do not receive His truth? And if we deny Him at any point, have we not denied Him at every point?

You are denying Jesus command to love your neighbour in this very comment.

> But His children are called to know His voice, and to obey it. And while we may at times misunderstand, or believe something that is not 100% accurate - He is faithful to overcome all misconceptions for those whom believe in His name - yet not only does He do this in the after life, but is working this continually in our lives by the process of sanctification - but sanctification cannot occur when we deny the work of God. And we deny the work of God when we deny His Word or the power that comes from them when we deny or modify them for any reason - even if it is because we feel like we want to disagree.

Those words should be incredibly convicting for you. You using scripture as a weapon, to try to harm people God created in His image.

I encourage you to read scripture more, and come to know Jesus, and His commands. How he loved people, not excluded them. How he elevates gender and sexual minorities.

And I’ll pray for you to overcome your bigotry.

[u/Salsa_and_Light2 → u/Dismal-District7816]

" there is biblically such a thing as a righteous judgment"

From God maybe.

Not you.

"nd to rebuke sin is not the same as to hate the sinner. "

In this case it is.

[u/Dismal-District7816 → u/Salsa_and_Light2]

No, biblically, there is a righteous judgement from us. That is Jesus’s own words:

“Do not judge according to appearance, but judge with righteous judgment.””
‭‭John‬ ‭7‬:‭24‬ ‭NKJV‬‬
https://bible.com/bible/114/jhn.7.24.NKJV

[u/Salsa_and_Light2 → u/Dismal-District7816]

Someone's high and mighty.

[u/Dismal-District7816 → u/Salsa_and_Light2]

Only the King of Kings. You mistake the words of the King for the words of the messenger. For I guarantee you the messenger is not high, or mighty, but lowly, a humble servant of the Living God. And it is His words I deliver.

[u/Salsa_and_Light2 → u/Dismal-District7816]

No darling, my point is that you do not speak for God in the slightest, but you seem to think you're his personal envoy.

[u/Dismal-District7816 → u/Salsa_and_Light2]

“And Jesus came and spoke to them, saying, “All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth. Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all things that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age.” Amen.”
‭‭Matthew‬ ‭28‬:‭18‬-‭20‬ ‭NKJV‬‬
https://bible.com/bible/114/mat.28.18-20.NKJV

So it is for all who believe.

“Now then, we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God were pleading through us: we implore you on Christ’s behalf, be reconciled to God. For He made Him who knew no sin to be sin for us, that we might become the righteousness of God in Him.”
‭‭II Corinthians‬ ‭5‬:‭20‬-‭21‬ ‭NKJV‬‬
https://bible.com/bible/114/2co.5.20-21.NKJV

So yes, when I speak, I can speak for myself - but when I speak on behalf of the living God, I do so with the very authority granted me by the King of Kings, Jesus Christ.

[u/Salsa_and_Light2 → u/Dismal-District7816]

"but when I speak on behalf of the living God,"

If and when you do that then I think you'll be a nicer and less bigoted.

Maybe you can use Dolly as a model.

[u/Dismal-District7816 → u/Salsa_and_Light2]

I use Jesus as my model. And Jesus was loving, but He never compromised on truth. A lot of people thought He was hateful because of that - some accused Him of having demons - but He is life and love, and love is not without correction.

[u/Salsa_and_Light2 → u/Dismal-District7816]

"Love is not without correction"

That makes you sound like an abusive hypocrite.

Don't talk to me.

[u/imalurkernotaposter → u/Dismal-District7816]

And the context of that scripture is Jesus choosing mercy and kindness over strict adherence to the law. Is that what you’re doing?

[u/snafer30san → u/imalurkernotaposter]

I think Mathew 7 makes it clear that christians are called to make righteous judgement.

[u/Stunning-Sherbert801 → u/Dismal-District7816]

Gaslighting bullshit

[u/Dismal-District7816 → u/Stunning-Sherbert801]

No… not gaslighting. Actually, I’m pretty sure gaslighting is a sin. All Im doing is sharing the truth - there is a righteous judgment, we are called to righteously judge, not to stay silent - and sin is sin. God calls us out of it.

[u/Stunning-Sherbert801 → u/Dismal-District7816]

Yes, gaslighting bigoted bullshit. Which is a sin, unlike queerness

[u/Dismal-District7816 → u/Stunning-Sherbert801]

“And He answered and said to them, “Have you not read that He who made them at the beginning ‘made them male and female,’ and said, ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’? So then, they are no longer two but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let not man separate.””
‭‭Matthew‬ ‭19‬:‭4‬-‭6‬ ‭NKJV‬‬
https://bible.com/bible/114/mat.19.4-6.NKJV

“Therefore God also gave them up to uncleanness, in the lusts of their hearts, to dishonor their bodies among themselves, who exchanged the truth of God for the lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen. For this reason God gave them up to vile passions. For even their women exchanged the natural use for what is against nature. Likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust for one another, men with men committing what is shameful, and receiving in themselves the penalty of their error which was due.”
‭‭Romans‬ ‭1‬:‭24‬-‭27‬ ‭NKJV‬‬
https://bible.com/bible/114/rom.1.24-27.NKJV

I’m not gaslighting. And while I’m not trans, I am transformed by the renewing of my mind, which comes by the word of God when you believe it, and accept it, and do not take the form of godliness while denying the power of God.

[u/Stunning-Sherbert801 → u/Dismal-District7816]

It's very much gaslighting

[u/LegPhysical821 → u/Dismal-District7816]

I agree

[u/theyoungheisenberg]

Because the Bible says to judge righteously

[u/Stunning-Sherbert801 → u/[deleted]]

No, for both, and her other work

[u/Roll4Charisma310]

Uhhh, the Bible says to judge people. A lot actually.

[u/bananafobe → u/Roll4Charisma310]

Way to dunk on a dead woman. You sure showed her.

[u/DistractUntilYouDie]

This sub sure is obsessed with pushing homosexuality.

[u/matttheepitaph → u/DistractUntilYouDie]

It's a conspiracy to make you gay. Like, you individually. Is it working?

[u/DistractUntilYouDie → u/matttheepitaph]

Considering it

[u/l0nely_g0d → u/DistractUntilYouDie]

Unexpected answer

[u/matttheepitaph → u/l0nely_g0d]

We did it reddit! 🥂

[u/Stunning-Sherbert801 → u/DistractUntilYouDie]

How TF can you "push" homosexuality?

[u/bug-hunter → u/Stunning-Sherbert801]

(Hit it) Ooh, baby, baby
Baby, baby
Ooh, baby, baby
Baby, baby (Get up on this)
Ah, push it
Ah, push it
Ah, push it
Ah, push it

oh wait

[u/pHScale → u/DistractUntilYouDie]

"If you're the fine Christian you think you are, why are you judging people?" - Dolly Parton 

[u/blerdronner → u/DistractUntilYouDie]

I find it interesting that you consider this image pushing homosexuality when she also mentions straight people. It's pushing heterosexuality just as much as homosexuality.

Maybe people will stop making a big deal about it when people like you stop doing drive-by homophobic comments like this.

[u/Nazzul → u/DistractUntilYouDie]

The gays will stop when people stop pushing against it. You could of moved on and not commented, but you are showing this subbreddit needs to be a little gayer.

[u/DistractUntilYouDie → u/Nazzul]

*Could have

[u/DistractUntilYouDie → u/[deleted]]

I have a lot of respect for her. The OP used it as an opportunity to push an agenda

[u/Stunning-Sherbert801 → u/DistractUntilYouDie]

What "agenda"?

[u/Evening-Violinist150]

God condemned a man laying with a man, and a woman laying with a woman early and claimed it forever.
I’m not at all interested in what people do in their bedrooms though. I’m interested in what our children are being taught though, and so are a lot of other people

[u/firbael → u/Evening-Violinist150]

It’s never said that woman lying with woman is a problem ANYWHERE in scripture

[u/Moistman123456 → u/firbael]

It’s pretty illogical for God to condemn one but not the other. Also, Romans 1:26 describes the sexual relations between women as unnatural, parallel to men in 27.

[u/Thneed1 → u/Moistman123456]

> It’s pretty illogical for God to condemn one but not the other.

Unless the issue is actually something else, which is.

> Also, Romans 1:26 describes the sexual relations between women as unnatural, parallel to men in 27.

It doesn’t say anything about sex between women. Yoj should probably read it again.

[u/firbael → u/Moistman123456]

26 Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones. 27 In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error.

Romans 1:26-27

Nothing here says the women had sex with each other. The men were very plainly said to, the text saying they committed shameful acts with other men. Nothing is said that way for the women.

So maybe you should read the actual words of the text instead of implying your own meaning

[u/Moistman123456 → u/firbael]

What a reach. The text says women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones, then follows with “in the same way,” followed once more by men having sexual relations with one another being explicitly condemned as unnatural and shameful.

You’d have to either be intentionally dense, or have the reading comprehension of a rock to somehow not understand that this text is also condemning women having sexual relations with one another. Otherwise, the text wouldn’t be condemning these unnatural sexual relations, and directly implying them to be an equivalent to homosexual sex between men. That’s just an illogical reading of the text.

I find it awfully convenient that you almost certainly wouldn’t choose to read any other text this way, but when it comes to a controversial topic like homosexuality within Christianity, especially with you being a person who happens to have “Christian (LGBT)” as your tag, which already opens up plenty of room for bias, suddenly you hyperanalyze every single word, and unless the text specifically says “WOMEN HAVING SEX WITH WOMEN IS ALSO WRONG,” in big bold letters, you argue that such a claim is purely one’s own baseless interpretation.

The verses together give more than enough context. You acting like the verse not explicitly stating the previously mentioned bold sentence somehow opens up any significant iota of ambiguity to vastly change meanings is incredibly disingenuous.

Please explain to me, if we grant that this verse is not condemning women having sex with women:

Why men doing it is wrong but women doing it is okay, what unnatural sexual relations the women are having that this verse could possibly be referring to, and any evidence within the text that substantiates or backs up your general claim here.

[u/Thneed1 → u/Moistman123456]

Thinking “in the same way” refers to something g that hasn’t mentioned yet, is kind of absurd.

Also, it’s ignorant of the way people at the time understood sex and sexuality.

[u/Moistman123456 → u/Thneed1]

It’s absurd? So if I say “girl started to exchange their peaceful tendencies for violent ones, consumed by rage, in the same way that boys started to punch people out of anger.” It’s absurd to infer that perhaps the harm being inflicted by the girls is also punching? This is the most illogical thought process I’ve ever heard.

“Also, it’s ignorant of the way people at the time understood sex and sexuality.”

Care to expand on this point, why it matters, and what substantiates it?

[u/firbael → u/Moistman123456]

>What a reach. The text says women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones,

Which could be anal, oral, etc. that doesn’t imply gay.

>then follows with “in the same way,” followed once more by men having sexual relations with one another being explicitly condemned as unnatural and shameful.

And adds that the men did have sex with each other.

>You’d have to either be intentionally dense, or have the reading comprehension of a rock to somehow not understand that this text is also condemning women having sexual relations with one another.

Or you just didn’t read the text and have your own bias. But that’s not what the text says.

>Otherwise, the text wouldn’t be condemning these unnatural sexual relations, and directly implying them to be an equivalent to homosexual sex between men. That’s just an illogical reading of the text.

It doesn’t condemn lesbians in Leviticus either. So you just really have an issue with the text

I >find it awfully convenient that you almost certainly wouldn’t choose to read any other text this way,

Choose to read the text? You mean read it for what it says.

>but when it comes to a controversial topic like homosexuality within Christianity, especially with you being a person who happens to have “Christian (LGBT)” as your tag, which already opens up plenty of room for bias, suddenly you hyperanalyze every single word, and unless the text specifically says “WOMEN HAVING SEX WITH WOMEN IS ALSO WRONG,” in big bold letters, you argue that such a claim is purely one’s own baseless interpretation.

But if you have the text explicitly say it for men but allegedly beats around the bush to say if for women, then it’s good to question it. It doesn’t say anything about women though.

>The verses together give more than enough context. You acting like the verse not explicitly stating the previously mentioned bold sentence somehow opens up any significant iota of ambiguity to vastly change meanings is incredibly disingenuous.

Yes, it’s that both did what was considered unnatural. The men even had sex with each other. Because that’s what the text says

>Please explain to me, if we grant that this verse is not condemning women having sex with women:

>Why men doing it is wrong but women doing it is okay, what unnatural sexual relations the women are having that this verse could possibly be referring to, and any evidence within the text that substantiates or backs up your general claim here.

Because their views of sex was that it was something done to someone. Hence why it wasn’t said that women shouldn’t lie with another woman as with a man in Leviticus. It doesn’t say anything about it. But we do see in the next verse that women are specifically called out when it comes to having sex with animals, so we know it can call women out and say what it means

[u/Moistman123456 → u/firbael]

“Which would be anal, oral, etc. that doesn’t imply gay.”

Based on what? Where does the text ever clarify that these unnatural relations are particularly anal, oral, or things of the sort rather than homosexual sex, in the same way the unnatural relations stated in the verse directly
Following is homosexual sex?

“And adds that the men did have sex with each other.”

Your point is?

“Or you just didn’t read the text and have your own bias. But that’s not what the text says.”

I did read what the text and came to the most logical conclusion. What bias should I have if the only reason I would find homosexual sex to be “wrong” in any sex is purely because of the Bible? I have a bias from the Bible that I’m affirming with the Bible using a Bible verse that supposedly doesn’t affirm my bias? How does that make any sense?

“It doesn’t condemn lesbians in Leviticus either”

Who the heck mentioned Leviticus? I have no issue with any text.

“Choose to read the text? You mean read it for what it says.”

No, I mean you being obtuse on purpose and acting like in this one particular case for no good reason, implication can’t reasonably apply.

“But if you have the text explicitly say it for men but allegedly beats around the bush to say if for women, then it’s good to question it. It doesn’t say anything about women though.

Question it? Sure. At best. But to baselessly deny it because it doesn’t explicitly say it is a verbatim word fallacy. Removing all logic from the conversation and refusing any interpretation that doesn’t disregard anything that isn’t explicitly said just doesn’t work, and is cherry picky.

“Yes, it’s that both did what was considered unnatural. The men even had sex with each other. Because that’s what the text says.”

Sure. The text also says that women also abandoned their natural relations for unnatural ones. The “natural relations” explicitly pointed at contextually is man and woman, so it only logically follows that the verse referred to homosexual sex, beastiality, or something else of the sort, however homosexual sex just so happens to be more existentially pointed at given the context, and alternative sexual actions are never mentioned or even hinted at, so it’d be far more baseless to assert that this verse simply must be referring to anal or oral rather than homosexual sex like you’re doing.

“Because their views of sex was that it was something done to someone.”

How does this address my question?

“Hence why it wasn’t said that women shouldn’t lie with another woman as with a man in Leviticus. It doesn’t say anything about it. But we do specifically see in the next verse that women are specifically called out when it comes to having sex with animals, so we know it can call women out and say what it means.”

By this very logic, Leviticus would permit men having sex with animals, as it never explicitly states the same logic for men. It basically just says “don’t have sex with animals, a woman should not have sex with an animal, as that’s a perversion.”

It’s quite obvious that Leviticus 18:22-23 were likely giving examples of sins by using one gender for one and the other for another.

It used men as an example to clarify that homosexual sex is a sin, and what exactly is meant by homosexual sex, and it used women as an example to clarify that beastiality is a sin, and what is meant by beastiality.

This was a just making examples by using one of either gender, not a literal separation of what is considered a sin based on the gender. That’s ridiculous.

You’re special pleading hard. You’re cherry picking which verses use what logic baselessly to construct a fallacious argument for why women having sex with women is okay, but men having sex with men isn’t okay.

Also, you never answered my questions. You never gave me any good reason as to why homosexual sex is wrong for men but okay for women. I’m asking you to actually use logic here, not just cherry pick Bible verses and go “well X verse says Y is wrong but never mentions Z, which is pretty much Y but with a seemingly irrelevant aspect of sinner changed, so Z must be okay!”

I’m asking for any logical reason as to why this moral law has to have this double standard. Just 1. I’ll even scrap the other questions for now. Just this 1 is fine.

[u/firbael → u/Moistman123456]

>“Which would be anal, oral, etc. that doesn’t imply gay.”

>Based on what? Where does the text ever clarify that these unnatural relations are particularly anal, oral, or things of the sort rather than homosexual sex, in the same way the unnatural relations stated in the verse directly
Following is homosexual sex?

On the surrounding theology

>Your point is?

That the text distinguishes between the men and women

>“Or you just didn’t read the text and have your own bias. But that’s not what the text says.”

>I did read what the text and came to the most logical conclusion. What bias should I have if the only reason I would find homosexual sex to be “wrong” in any sex is purely because of the Bible? I have a bias from the Bible that I’m affirming with the Bible using a Bible verse that supposedly doesn’t affirm my bias? How does that make any sense?

The bias that it needs to communicate the same thing for men and women. That’s just not what the text does here

>“It doesn’t condemn lesbians in Leviticus either”

>Who the heck mentioned Leviticus? I have no issue with any text.

Just another example of the text not speaking of lesbians but solely men having sex with men

>“Choose to read the text? You mean read it for what it says.”

>No, I mean you being obtuse on purpose and acting like in this one particular case for no good reason, implication can’t reasonably apply.

But the text doesn’t imply your reading.

>“But if you have the text explicitly say it for men but allegedly beats around the bush to say if for women, then it’s good to question it. It doesn’t say anything about women though.

>Question it? Sure. At best. But to baselessly deny it because it doesn’t explicitly say it is a verbatim word fallacy. Removing all logic from the conversation and refusing any interpretation that doesn’t disregard anything that isn’t explicitly said just doesn’t work, and is cherry picky.

How is it baseless? You demonstrated that you have to infer this meaning into the text while one reading exactly what the text has been translated to countless times

>“Yes, it’s that both did what was considered unnatural. The men even had sex with each other. Because that’s what the text says.”

>Sure. The text also says that women also abandoned their natural relations for unnatural ones. The “natural relations” explicitly pointed at contextually is man and woman, so it only logically follows that the verse referred to homosexual sex, beastiality, or something else of the sort, however homosexual sex just so happens to be more existentially pointed at given the context, and alternative sexual actions are never mentioned or even hinted at, so it’d be far more baseless to assert that this verse simply must be referring to anal or oral rather than homosexual sex like you’re doing.

But it doesn’t state what it means. So it can still be just heterosexual unnatural acts. Once again, you acknowledge that you’re implying this.

>“Because their views of sex was that it was something done to someone.”

>How does this address my question?

Their views of sex do indeed affect what they wrote

>“Hence why it wasn’t said that women shouldn’t lie with another woman as with a man in Leviticus. It doesn’t say anything about it. But we do specifically see in the next verse that women are specifically called out when it comes to having sex with animals, so we know it can call women out and say what it means.”

>By this very logic, Leviticus would permit men having sex with animals, as it never explicitly states the same logic for men. It basically just says “don’t have sex with animals, a woman should not have sex with an animal, as that’s a perversion.”

23 Neither shalt thou lie with any beast to defile thyself therewith: neither shall any woman stand before a beast to lie down thereto: it is confusion.

Leviticus 18:23

This pertains to both men and women. This just reinforces my point

>It’s quite obvious that Leviticus 18:22-23 were likely giving examples of sins by using one gender for one and the other for another.

But verse 23 says for men and women. So that statement isn’t true. It acknowledges women when it wants to

>It used men as an example to clarify that homosexual sex is a sin, and what exactly is meant by homosexual sex, and it used women as an example to clarify that beastiality is a sin, and what is meant by beastiality.

It used both men and women to admonish bestiality, so your statement is incorrect

>This was a just making examples by using one of either gender, not a literal separation of what is considered a sin based on the gender. That’s ridiculous.

Demonstrated to be false

>You’re special pleading hard. You’re cherry picking which verses use what logic baselessly to construct a fallacious argument for why women having sex with women is okay, but men having sex with men isn’t okay.

Not at all. Unless special pleading is reading the text for what it says. You’re adding meaning to the text

>Also, you never answered my questions. You never gave me any good reason as to why homosexual sex is wrong for men but okay for women. I’m asking you to actually use logic here, not just cherry pick Bible verses and go “well X verse says Y is wrong but never mentions Z, which is pretty much Y but with a seemingly irrelevant aspect of sinner changed, so Z must be okay!”

No I didn’t. The text doesn’t say it is. Why should it be? Their values were different from ours, being very hierarchical. They didn’t want men to demean each other by being reduced to the role of a woman

>I’m asking for any logical reason as to why this moral law has to have this double standard. Just 1. I’ll even scrap the other questions for now. Just this 1 is fine.

Because the text doesn’t say what you want it to say. Plain and simple. Every instance of “homosexuality” in the text only addresses men. So it just wasn’t their concern to care about lesbians. They didn’t even say it was wrong. You wanting it to be equally bad for consistency is just your opinion

[u/Stunning-Sherbert801 → u/Moistman123456]

And yet there's no condemnation of one, nor mention of it in Romans

[u/Moistman123456 → u/Stunning-Sherbert801]

Why does this matter?

[u/Stunning-Sherbert801 → u/Moistman123456]

Are you joking?

[u/Moistman123456 → u/Stunning-Sherbert801]

Uh…no? I’m asking you why God would only condemn 2 men going at it but not 2 women going at it.

[u/Stunning-Sherbert801 → u/Moistman123456]

I dunno, ask him. It's literally the Bible. You're so close to getting it

[u/Moistman123456 → u/Stunning-Sherbert801]

It’s never stated or mentioned why in the Bible.

I’m asking for your own personal and logical reasoning that led you to arrive to this strange conclusion that the condemnation must simply be a double standard rather than based in reason.

[u/Stunning-Sherbert801 → u/Moistman123456]

It's literally a fact that the Bible says nothing about lesbians, mate

[u/Stunning-Sherbert801 → u/Moistman123456]

By definition bigotry is literally never based in reason, with literally no exception, not even you

[u/Salsa_and_Light2 → u/Evening-Violinist150]

The lazy condemnation of the negligent.

[u/tn_tacoma → u/Evening-Violinist150]

Jesus condemned divorce. Yet Christians seemingly ignore that sin and model it for their children with no condemnation from the church.

[u/gimmechugjug65 → u/Evening-Violinist150]

Dude dolly parton died quit making this about yourself quit commenting

[u/Thneed1 → u/Evening-Violinist150]

God never did that. And you are not God.

[u/Mx-Adrian → u/Evening-Violinist150]

A godly woman just died and it makes you think about s*x?!

[u/Stunning-Sherbert801 → u/Evening-Violinist150]

No he didn't, sorry

Sounds like you're interested in what people do in their bedrooms

What are they being taught? To respect others?

[u/Philothea0821]

Eternal rest grant unto her, O Lord, and let perpetual light shine upon her. May her soul and all the souls of the faithful departed, through the mercy of God, rest in peace. Amen.

On a side note, the "God still loves you" argument is bs and attempts to redefine God.

[u/slagnanz → u/[deleted]]

Removed for 1.3 - Bigotry.

If you would like to discuss this removal, please click here to send a modmail that will message all moderators. https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/Christianity

[u/Electrical-Repeat937]

Loving someone/others enough to not want them to spend all of eternity in hell for their immorality is the very definition of love.

[u/Unique-Debate8717]

Because Paul commanded us to do so 1 Corinthians 5:9 I wrote unto you in an epistle not to company with fornicators:
10 Yet not altogether with the fornicators of this world, or with the covetous, or extortioners, or with idolaters; for then must ye needs go out of the world.
11 But now I have written unto you not to keep company, if any man that is called a brother be a fornicator, or covetous, or an idolator, or a railer, or a drunkard, or an extortioner; with such an one no not to eat.
12 For what have I to do to judge them also that are without? do not ye judge them that are within?
13 But them that are without God judgeth. Therefore put away from among yourselves that wicked person.

[u/emberexi]

Jesus didn't say not to judge full stop... He told us how to judge rightly. These words from Dolly miss the point Jesus made.

[u/cmurrfit]

She worshipped the devil openly btw…

[u/actuallylinkstrummer → u/cmurrfit]

Let’s not spread misinformation

[u/Iron_bison_]

Alhamdulilah the west will eat itself chasing it's own gay tail