This is an enormous chain and I’m sorry, but I need to say this:
The laws in the Old Testament were set forth by god as the rules the Hebrews needed to follow in order to be righteous, to atone for the sin of Adam and Eve and to be able to get into Heaven. That is also why they were required to make sacrifices, because it was part of the appeasement for Original Sin.
According to Christian theology, when Jesus came from Heaven, it was for the express purpose of sacrificing himself on the cross so that our sins may be forgiven. His sacrifice was supposed to be the ultimate act that would free us from the former laws and regulations and allow us to enter Heaven by acting in his image. That is why he said “it is finished” when he died on the cross. That is why Christians don’t have to circumcise their sons (god’s covenant with Jacob), that is why they don’t have to perform animal sacrifice, or grow out their forelocks, or follow any of the other laws of Leviticus.
When you quote Leviticus as god’s law and say they are rules we must follow because they are what god or Jesus wants us to do, what you are really saying, as a Christian, is that Christ’s sacrifice on the cross was invalid. He died in vain because you believe we are still beholden to the old laws. That is what you, a self-professed good Christian, are saying to your god and his son, that their plan for your salvation wasn’t good enough for you.
So maybe actually read the thing before you start quoting it, because the implications of your actions go a lot deeper than you think.
/An atheist who understands Christian theology better than Bible-thumpers do.
Um…. I feel like this post, while good, is still lacking something, because I feel I should point out that I’m pretty sure Jesus DOES say something about homosexuality. There is a part about Jesus healing a Man’s servant-boy in Matthew 8:5-13 and Luke 7:1-10.
The story is meant to show that Jesus doesn’t discriminate.
Most people just interpret it to mean because the Man was a Roman centurion who would not have been well liked by the early Christians…
But the according to the original texts, the boy who was healed is described by Luke and Matthew as “entimos doulos” meaning ‘honored servant’ and also “pais” which could mean several things including ‘young male’, ‘servant’ and ‘younger male sexual partner’.
‘Honored’ and ‘servant’ are kind of a contradiction… unless you interpret ‘pais’ to mean sexual partner. And Roman soldiers were notorious for taking their shield bearers as lovers…
So the message is in the story is the same. Jesus doesn’t discriminate. But now everything makes a lot more sense. We understand why people would be discriminating against them in the first place…
…Can I love you? Please? Can I?
Because this? This is the best thing ever. The best thing ever.
You have no idea how awesome this is. Like, seriously, this is fucking amazing for me. I spend a lot of time reading the website Fundies Say the Darnedest Things, and most of it’s quotes from fundamentalists, and a lot of it’s heterosexism from Christian fundies. I HAVE BIBLICAL PROOF NOW, BITCHES.
Gah, thank you, thank you, so much.
(Also, on a personal level, this is actually really reassuring, considering I’m queer and Catholic/agnostic. This might be the best thing I’ve ever read regarding Christianity and being LGBTQ+, so I just…thanks. Thank you.)
You’re welcome the full bible study on this story is here. http://glreview.com/article.php?articleid=32
As a Catholic, you might appreciate the last part, about communion. =P
Also most of the passages in the modern English versions of the bible that are supposedly against homosexuality, even the old testament ones, are simply poorly translated, probably by people who were homophobic. So always check the original Greek and Latin versions and google it!
can everybody just please read this
Show more notes