After Further Review, I Still Don’t Think Jesus Wants His Followers to Kill Gay People
In the comments of my last post (we missed a week because of blog host shenanigans), Ken B. provided links (here and here) that show Christians themselves wondering about the authenticity of the famous gospel story in which Jesus says, “Let him who is without sin cast the first stone.” I also talked with two people I trust, who know a lot more on these things than I do, and their answers were not definitive that the account is airtight.
So, I agree with Ken B. that I shouldn’t place a lot of weight on that particular passage, until I personally investigate the matter more and can be confident that Jesus actually did say it.
Having said all that, I am still quite sure about my stance on what started this whole thing: I had said that although one could argue that Jesus thought marriage should be only between a man and woman, there was no way any Christian could possibly think that Jesus wants him to stone gay people to death.
My thoughts then provoked people to throw Old Testament quotations at me, and passages saying Jesus and the Father are one, etc. etc. (I may not be perfectly reproducing the progression of the discussion, but I am pretty sure this was the spirit of it.)
In this context, I then cited the case of the religious authorities deliberately trying to trap Jesus on His seeming mercy in light of the Mosaic law, by bringing before Him a woman caught in adultery. Since the Old Testament calls for her to be stoned, what would Jesus say? And–according to that gospel account–Jesus neither commanded her to be stoned, nor did He say the law was invalid. Rather, He (allegedly) said, “Let him who is without sin cast the first stone.”
Now, in light of Ken B’s evidence, I recognize that I can’t be certain that this event actually happened. OK fine, there are still plenty of other places in the gospels where Jesus doesn’t endorse His followers actually implementing the harsh penalties prescribed in the Old Testament. Perhaps the most obvious example is Matthew 5: 38-45:
38 “You have heard that it was said, ‘An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.’ 39 But I tell you not to resist an evil person. But whoever slaps you on your right cheek, turn the other to him also. 40 If anyone wants to sue you and take away your tunic, let him have your cloak also. 41 And whoever compels you to go one mile, go with him two. 42 Give to him who asks you, and from him who wants to borrow from you do not turn away.
43 “You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ 44 But I say to you, love your enemies, bless those who curse you, do good to those who hate you, and pray for those who spitefully use you and persecute you,[h] 45 that you may be sons of your Father in heaven; for He makes His sun rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the just and on the unjust.
Look carefully at the parts I put in bold. Jesus is clearly saying, “Hey guys, you used to operate under this understanding, but now I’m stepping it up a notch.” Also notice that this older understanding came from the law–it wasn’t some pagan rituals that Jesus is here discussing. For example from Exodus 21: 22-25:
22 “If men fight, and hurt a woman with child, so that she gives birth prematurely, yet no harm follows, he shall surely be punished accordingly as the woman’s husband imposes on him; and he shall pay as the judges determine. 23 But if any harm follows, then you shall give life for life, 24 eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, 25 burn for burn, wound for wound, stripe for stripe.”
So to repeat my earlier thoughts, if modern agnostics/atheists want to ridicule the crazy, contradictory doctrines of modern Christianity, OK you can make that argument. But it is simply wrong to assert that if you call yourself a Christian, oops you just agreed you have to stone your teenager if he talks back. That is simply not true. That’s not what Jesus taught.
Here are some other examples of Jesus’ teachings that make it hard for me to see how anybody calling himself a Christian can make posters saying, “God hates f*gs” etc.
==> Following perhaps the most famous verse in the Bible is this (Jn 3:17): “17 For God did not send His Son into the world to condemn the world, but that the world through Him might be saved.”
==> Or how about this one? Jesus is looking at Jerusalem before His ordeal will begin. He laments (Mt 23: 37), “O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, the one who kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to her! How often I wanted to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, but you were not willing!”
==> Yet another episode where Jesus clarifies that self-righteous condemnation is not His purpose (Mark 2:15-17):
15 Now it happened, as He was dining in Levi’s house, that many tax collectors and sinners also sat together with Jesus and His disciples; for there were many, and they followed Him. 16 And when the scribes and[a] Pharisees saw Him eating with the tax collectors and sinners, they said to His disciples, “How is it that He eats and drinks with tax collectors and sinners?”
17 When Jesus heard it, He said to them, “Those who are well have no need of a physician, but those who are sick. I did not come to call the righteous, but sinners, to repentance.”
==> And let’s suppose you convince me that God still wants to destroy people for sinning. OK, does that mean you are supposed to carry it out? If you think that, remember Jesus also said (Mt 7:1 – 5):
7 “Judge not, that you be not judged. 2 For with what judgment you judge, you will be judged; and with the measure you use, it will be measured back to you. 3 And why do you look at the speck in your brother’s eye, but do not consider the plank in your own eye? 4 Or how can you say to your brother, ‘Let me remove the speck from your eye’; and look, a plank is in your own eye? 5 Hypocrite! First remove the plank from your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother’s eye.”
In conclusion, let me reiterate that I am not a Bible scholar. All I have done is read the book (in its modern translations) and go to church. Yet it seems to me that unless the entire gospel is a fabrication, then followers of the man called Jesus Christ are not here to condemn others for sin. That goes against everything Jesus reputedly stood for.
I’m not sure if you’ve answered this question or not but, do you believe in evolution, or in creationism?
So in a debate between an “OT Christian” and a “NT Christian”, where they disagree vehemently with each other, over issues such as gay marriage and what the Christian is and is not obligated to do concerning its practise, then the “OT Christian” is not an actual Christian? Even if they atone for their sins, hold Jesus as their savior, and so forth? In other words, a person who believes “God hates f*gs” and other “OT Christian” stuff precludes them from being a Christian? It that is the case, then what religious denomination are these people? If they’re not Jews and they’re not Christians, what are they?
If going against Jesus precludes one from being a Christian, then isn’t it the case then that nobody can be a Christian, since everyone sins according to Christianity?
What if someone spends their days at funerals holding signs that say “God Hates F*gs”, but then spends their evenings praying to Jesus for forgiveness for their sins? Would they be a Christian then? If so, then someone who kills gay people can justifiably claim to be Christian, provided they do ask Jesus for forgiveness. If not, then which sinner can claim to be a Christian?
——————–
Why would God prescribe a set of laws, but then suddenly change the laws? Why would God command people kill each other (Leviticus 20:13) and not kill each other (Ten Commandments: “Thou shalt not kill”), but then all of a sudden command that they not kill each other? Did God’s laws change, or did people’s beliefs change? It is impossible for contradictory commandments to be followed. Of I started a religion that consisted of just two commandments, first chapter “Thou shalt not kill” and second chapter “Thou shalt kill”, it probably wouldn’t last. Or will it? Might there not arise first chapter (FS) followers and second chapter (SC) followers? Two denominations if you will? In fact, isn’t this religion already being practised today? Isn’t every individual either a FC follower or a SC follower?
Way off topic, but maybe that’s why contradictory authors like Keynes and Hayek gained rather widespread popularity, whereas logically rigorous authors like Mises and Rothbard gained rather niche popularity. Utter contradictory things and you’ll attract people from all sides. In our democratic infested society, even mass popularity of ideas becomes a judge of ideas.
I’ll join in: I am an egoist and I am not an egoist. Everyone likes me!
There’s no such thing as an “OT Christian.” If someone is only “OT” then we call that person “Jewish.”
“Why would God prescribe a set of laws, but then suddenly change the laws?”
Christ came in the NT, and perfected the understanding of the OT.
Example: Jesus said that Moses allowed divorce because of “the hardness of your hearts.” But Christians are not to be divorced except in cases where the original marriage was unlawful. (An unlawful marriage would be a close incestuous relationship.)
The reason God gave one set of laws and then changed them, is that the people wouldn’t originally have followed the ultimate set of laws. The initial laws were to get the people used to following a *better* moral code than what was usual at the time. After the better code became accepted, the *best* code could be proposed. This is similar to why we need to fight to improve the laws of our country even if they are flawed.
A good contra-example is abortion. Scientifically there can be no doubt that the pre-born child is a unique individual of the human species. The little one can’t survive on its own, but neither could a healthy adult who was thrown into the ocean or Sahara alone and unaided. The little one is smaller than others, but this doesn’t cause us to allow the killing of pygmies and midgets. But because that child is ‘not useful’ we allow it to be killed. This then moves the debate away from protecting every human, into the realm of protecting every useful human. Thus, the debate is now about who should receive health care . . . should we pull the plug on people who are not likely to contribute to society?
God issued the initial laws as a way of moving the argument in the right direction for acceptance of His perfect law.
“If going against Jesus precludes one from being a Christian, then isn’t it the case then that nobody can be a Christian, since everyone sins according to Christianity?”
Christianity is something to be practiced. It’s not something that we get right the first time. I guess you could consider it to be an art form. The great artists love the practice of their art, and go to great lengths to become better. The same is true with the great Christians. Being a Christian *can* be reduced to a boolean test, just as “Are you a saxophone player?” can be a boolean test . . . but that doesn’t mean that you are a *model* saxophone player. The boolean test for Christianity reduces to “have you been baptized in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, with the intent of doing as the Apostles did?” The boolean test for saxophone is “have you ever played a saxophone?”
There’s no such thing as an “OT Christian.” If someone is only “OT” then we call that person “Jewish.”
I’ll be more clear. By “OT Christian”, I don’t mean someone who rejects the NT. I mean one who considers themselves Christian, goes to Christian church, believes in Jesus as their Lord, and all the rest, but their treatment of other people is more heavily influenced by OT law. Think of the difference between Fred Phelps, and other Christians who tend to cite OT scripture more often to justify their actions, and Bob Murphy, who tends to cite NT scripture more often to justify his actions.
Christ came in the NT, and perfected the understanding of the OT.
Don’t you mean contradicting the OT? How is going from “kill homosexuals” to “love thy enemy” and “judge not”, a “perfection”?
The reason God gave one set of laws and then changed them, is that the people wouldn’t originally have followed the ultimate set of laws.
Then why set those laws in the first place and keep them there for 2500 years?
The initial laws were to get the people used to following a *better* moral code than what was usual at the time.
How do you know that?
What was “usual at the time”?
After the better code became accepted, the *best* code could be proposed. This is similar to why we need to fight to improve the laws of our country even if they are flawed.
Shouldn’t we then interpret NT as something to be improved upon as well? How do you know it’s perfection, rather than an improvement like the OT?
A good contra-example is abortion. Scientifically there can be no doubt that the pre-born child is a unique individual of the human species.
I disagree. Scientifically it can be shown that fetuses are the property of the mother and are not separate human beings.
The little one can’t survive on its own, but neither could a healthy adult who was thrown into the ocean or Sahara alone and unaided.
Neither can any human thrown on Earth if you want to go down that road. Everyone who arises on Earth, cannot survive, and will eventually die.
The little one is smaller than others, but this doesn’t cause us to allow the killing of pygmies and midgets.
Maybe your usage of the term “little one” is leading you to believe that those who abort fetuses are using the logic that fetuses can be ejected from the mother’s body on the basis that they are relatively smaller than grown adults.
But because that child is ‘not useful’ we allow it to be killed.
Oh but their souls are permanent, so it’s not a big deal. The souls of these fetuses end up immortal and in God’s glory. No biggie.
This then moves the debate away from protecting every human, into the realm of protecting every useful human.
You cannot protect every human from death even if you tried. Choices must be made at the margin.
Thus, the debate is now about who should receive health care . . . should we pull the plug on people who are not likely to contribute to society?
You say “we” like everyone acts in unison.
God issued the initial laws as a way of moving the argument in the right direction for acceptance of His perfect law.
How do you know that?
“If going against Jesus precludes one from being a Christian, then isn’t it the case then that nobody can be a Christian, since everyone sins according to Christianity?”
Christianity is something to be practiced. It’s not something that we get right the first time.
Isn’t each person’s life the first time they tried? If people cannot get it right the first time they try, then nobody can be considered Christian.
I guess you could consider it to be an art form. The great artists love the practice of their art, and go to great lengths to become better. The same is true with the great Christians.
How can that be when you consider the NT “perfect”?
“Scientifically it can be shown that fetuses are the property of the mother and are not separate human beings.”
Science has evidently made some serious headway. Humor me. What, precisely, is the scientific definition of “property”? If there’s some inherent quality in a given set of matter which identifies its unique “owner”, that makes libertarian theory vastly easier. No more quibbles over homesteading or registrations of title or stolen property. Just take a sample, put it in an Own-o-meter, and all those disputes are resolved.
Egoist wrote:
I’ll join in: I am an egoist and I am not an egoist.
That’s kind of an ironic statement, don’t you think?
Egoists own both logical and illogical thoughts. I don’t see how an egoist using one’s property the way he wants to use them, for his own enjoyment, constitutes irony.
Egoists do not make logic their master. They are masters of logical and illogical thoughts.
Egoist wrote:
I don’t see how an egoist using one’s property the way he wants to use them, for his own enjoyment, constitutes irony.
No, the irony would be someone who is both, and is not, an Egoist, posting on someone else’s blog and calling the person out for inconsistency in worldviews.
Voluntary egoists don’t accept the golden rule.
There is no contradiction if it’s all for my enjoyment. It satisfies me in a way that the “Rational” in me or the “Christian” in me alone cannot.
This is one reason why voluntary egoists are overwhelmingly shunned. Just when you thought you understood what you were dealing with, by making constancy inferences from their past actions, Bam!, they act in ways you did not expect. How dare they.
Such chaos cannot be tolerated. I too must accept a rigid, unchanging master, determined by other egoists of course, so that all the self-imposed slaves can better attain egoistic moral or physical authority over me, so as to gratify their own egoism.
By saying I violated what “Rationalist man” or what “Christian man” ought to do, your involuntary egoism is satisfied.
————————–
Saying “I am not an egoist” is a violation of the rules of Rationalist man, but it is not a violation of Egoism, since it is an egoist action.
It constitutes irony for everyone who has to read the results.
Old Testament and New Testament laws
Testament sometimes is translated covenant or contract.
Now, you understand what Jesus meant when he said that he comes to fulfill the old law and not to destroy it.
Jesus fulfilled the obligation of the old contract and established a new contract with his followers.
Also people sometimes miss the obvious that some laws in OT are subjective in social context of OT, yet they are based on objective principals. Usually those objective principles are found in Old and New Testament.
The most important point is the fact that when God created the world and on sixth day pronounced it very good, there was no law at all. Law was established because of sin and sin is the enemy.
When people ask me about which laws they should follow, I tell them the good news that there will be no law for we will be in Christ. Then I tell them about the New Testament, that is the new contract.
“God hates f*gs” in essence is correct for God hates sin and will not tolerate if for ever. But we must remember that we are all sinners and only way to salvation is trough Jesus Christ.
Now, that does not mean we should not warn people of what will happen if they continue with their behavior. Warning people is part of loving them.
Futurity wrote:
“God hates f*gs” in essence is correct for God hates sin and will not tolerate if for ever.
No, it isn’t correct. You can say God hates homosexuality if you want, and then we could have a discussion on that.
But if you think God hates people who practice it, then God hates everyone except Jesus, because we’re all sinners.
So, do you really think Christians should be making signs telling the world, “God hates you” ?
Thank you for that. It bothered me when I saw it, but not quite enough to respond . . . and your response was far pithier than mine would have been. 🙂
Bob Murphy: “No, it isn’t correct. You can say God hates homosexuality if you want, and then we could have a discussion on that. ”
This is a modern nonsense that is so prevalent in church today. Sin is not outside of man, but part of man that defines him. Man and his sin are one. “God judges sinners” and “God judges sin” means exactly the same.
God hates sinners because of their sin.
Here are some passages:
Psalm 5:5 “The arrogant cannot stand in your presence; you hate all who do wrong.”
Psalm 11:5 “The LORD examines the righteous, but the wicked and those who love violence his soul hates.”
Hosea 9:15 “Because of all their wickedness in Gilgal, I hated them there. Because of their sinful deeds, I will drive them out of my house. I will no longer love them; all their leaders are rebellious.”
Bob Murphy: “But if you think God hates people who practice it, then God hates everyone except Jesus, because we’re all sinners.”
Exactly, that is why holding a sign with “God hates f*gs” is just showing to the world that you are a hypocrite.
The fact that God hates sinners, because of sin is a sober reminder of the judgment and that the most people will be condemned forever. Only those who’s sin was covered will live forever in Christ.
Bob Murphy “So, do you really think Christians should be making signs telling the world, “God hates you” ?”
No(read above). The best would be: “God loves you, but he will not tolerate sinners forever”.
It is clear at this point that God loves and hates us at the same time. But when all the wicked will be judged and there will be no sin and no law, then there will be only love. Something I look forward to.
Futurity you have given some good quotes, I’ll give you that. Still, do you think it would be correct to tell people, “You have a friend in Jesus, even though He hates you right now.” ?
I already answered this in my previous post. And it was No.
I would not say: “You have friend in Jesus” for it is a claim not supported in the scripture(I dare you to prove me wrong).
Nor would I say “he hates you” for reasons already stated.
As noted before I would say: “God loves you, but he will not tolerate sinners forever”.
“It is clear at this point that God loves and hates us at the same time.”
And there is the illogical necessity of religion. Two mutually exclusive attributes are claimed in the same being.
In order to have the thought of the incomprehensible, one has to believe in contradictory premises.
Anon wrote:
And there is the illogical necessity of religion.
For what it’s worth, I don’t think God loves and hates us at the same time.
Only ignorant people find this illogical. Thinking of hate in absolute sense is really a recent invention and definitely not in the Bible.
You attached today’s meaning of hate to that found in the Bible. That actually is a logical error known as: Etymological fallacy [1]
Example:
“And he went in also unto Rachel, and he loved also Rachel more than Leah, and served with him yet seven other years. And when the LORD saw that Leah was hated, he opened her womb: but Rachel was barren.”
Here Rachel is loved more than Leah, therefor Leah is hated.
Leah is hated and loved at the same time.
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Etymological_fallacy
Futurity, so when someone makes a sign saying “God hates f*gs,” and you say that it technically correct, you mean in the sense in which “hate” and “love” can occur simultaneously, and really in today’s parlance it means, “God loves you, but not as much as if you were heterosexual”?
Do you agree with me that God doesn’t hate people, in the sense in which a person today uses the word “hate”?
Bob Murphy: “Do you agree with me that God doesn’t hate people, in the sense in which a person today uses the word “hate”?”
No, for I can think of example when this is true in today’s sense that is when God takes all his love away from someone, then there is only hate left. I think this is what judgment will be.
So if someone wants to convey a message that God will judge people for their homosexual sin, the message “God hates f*gs” is in essence correct in both meanings of the word hate.
On the other hand if someone wanted to say that God absolutely hate homosexuals right now and forever, then this is incorrect for we live in a world where God keeps loving us.
This leads to ambiguity and is not helpful in spreading of the gospel.
Bob Murphy: “God loves you, but not as much as if you were heterosexual”?
This is correct in this world, where God keeps loving us and offers salvation to everyone. But this does not convey a critical message, that God will not love all people forever.
Definitely though, “God loves you” is more biblical than “God hates you” in today’s meanings of the words hate and love.
I don’t know that it literally says, “Jesus is everyone’s friend” but I don’t think that is wishful thinking. I didn’t search too extensively by e.g. Revelation 3:20 says, “Behold, I stand at the door and knock. If anyone hears My voice and opens the door, I will come in to him and dine with him, and he with Me.”
Revelation 3:20 says, “Behold, I stand at the door and knock. If anyone hears My voice and opens the door, I will come in to him and dine with him, and he with Me.”
And how Jesus dinning with you proves he is your friend? I think of many reasons he could dine with you, one could be he is your teacher.
I am clueless what you want to prove here.
You would think the blatant contradictions of the Old and New Testaments would cause you to suspect their validity. You are going to “investigate” whether Jesus actually said something?
““You have heard that it was said, ‘An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.’ 39 But I tell you not to resist an evil person. But whoever slaps you on your right cheek, turn the other to him also. ”
This is about retribution. When you stone a GLBT you’re not taking revenge for anything (hopefully).
““You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ 44 But I say to you, love your enemies, bless those who curse you”
Couple problems. First, GLBTs are just random people. They aren’t “enemies”. So there’s no juxtaposition to be had here. Second, you can love someone and still punish them… unless you think there are no christian judges?
““17 For God did not send His Son into the world to condemn the world, but that the world through Him might be saved.””
I know right? But if people are gonna be GLBT in spite of Jesus’ coming, then at some point you gotta stone someone.
“When Jesus heard it, He said to them, “Those who are well have no need of a physician, but those who are sick. I did not come to call the righteous, but sinners, to repentance.”
How many repent-s do you get before the stoning passages come into effect?
““Judge not, that you be not judged. 2 For with what judgment you judge, you will be judged; and with the measure you use, it will be measured back to you.”
If I stone a GLBT, what judgment am I dishing out? I followed the bible, and probably used common sense criteria to determine they were GLBT. Now this might open me up for being stoned myself if I work on the sabbath or eat pork or something, but it’s possible that I’m okay with this.
And this whole line of argument is a very base appeal to one’s self interest.
Somewhat off-topic, but I’ve always been confused by references to “Biblical definitions of marriage” as being one man and one woman.
If you (this is a general “you” – not you, Bob) want to advocate defining marriage that way, then go ahead and define it that way. I’d disagree with you but we can have disagreements about these things.
But don’t tell me it’s the “Biblical definition”.
The Biblical definition of marriage clearly includes polygamy. Anyone who wants to ground their “one man/one woman” views on marriage in the Bible needs to explain why they’re opposed to polygamy when that’s clearly Biblical.
Otherwise it just strikes me as abusing the Bible for your own purposes. These people should have the courage to say they actually don’t support the Biblical definition of marriage. They should say they support a modern, man-made definition of marriage.
Agreed, this isn’t so much Biblical as Traditional. In the Bible, a bride could have only one groom, and if that husband died, the husband’s next of kin were called to raise up children for the deceased. In the Apostolic Tradition, Jesus is the groom and the Church is the bride. In the act of Communion, the bride (the Church) “receives Jesus into her,” to make the Church bring new life into the world. Symbolically, this was meant to reflect exactly what your dirty little minds think it means. 🙂 (Hey, why did you think it was called communion?)
So, I believe, the Tradition of “One bride for one groom” came about because there is only one Church, but I’d have to do a little more research on that to say so definitively.
Drigan, I think you’re conceding way too much to Daniel here. Jesus was asked about marriage, and He specifically said in the beginning God created them one man and one woman. (Jesus was here talking against divorce, not against homosexual unions.)
Yes many Israelites had multiple wives, but they also owned slaves. So Daniel, if I say that Jesus is against slavery, would you say I’m selectively quoting from the Bible? (Maybe you would, but the case against multiple wives is stronger than the case against slavery I would say.)
Other translations say “male and female”… I don’t know Greek so I couldn’t say, but he certainly doesn’t seem to be concerned with monogamy here. He seems concerned with divorce, as you say.
If this is an argument for monogamy, he sure is beating around the bush. I’m not entirely convinced Jesus had strong feelings for monogamy vs. polygamy.
If he was opposed to slavery, that’s also news to me, but I’d be interested in hearing more.
Yeah, as a Protestant, I could see why you would think I was conceding too much, but as a Catholic, I didn’t actually concede anything. I basically said “I see where you’re coming from, and agree that it’s confusing, but Apostolic Tradition, is where you’ll find your answer.” As a Catholic, this means “it may not be in the Bible explicitly, but that doesn’t matter, because Christianity wasn’t all written down. The authoritative interpreters of Scripture and Christianity would have your answer.”
Polygamy goes only in one direction. 1 man to many women. Islam, to this day, approves polygamy. I have been told by some Islamic scholars that this openness to polygamy is a misuse of scripture that It doesn’t apply to modern world. In the old days, very often, women outnumbered men in large numbers, especially in times of war. Since men traditionally had the responsibility of bringing home the dough, they were asked to be responsible for more than 1 woman, or else many women live and die without ever having someone to provide and protect them.
I am not a Muslim, so I can’t say for sure that this is the official interpretation.
Oh, forgot to mention, the Bible *does* implicitly condemn having sex without openness to children through the story of Onan . . . to me this is an implicit condemnation glbt and an explicit condemnation of contraception . . . anyone have another thought on this?
Yes. I think you err by trying to apply a broad rule that extends beyond the particulars of that story.
Onan wasn’t killed because he spilled his seed. The purpose of his having intercourse with his brother’s wife was to provide a child for his brother, and Onan explicitly disobeyed that requirement. That is why he was killed.
It doesn’t follow that because he was punished for sex without procreation in that instance, that all sex without procreation is therefore forbidden.
Lev 18:22 “Do not have sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman; that is detestable.”
Sounds like a prohibition of bisexuality.
Lev 20:13 “If a man has sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They are to be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads.”
See, the wording is so weird here. It’s not “don’t have sex with men”, it’s “don’t have sex with men THE SAME WAY you’d have sex with women”. Without going into too much detail, this should be pretty easy.
Bob,
Well said.
The things that happen when you take a week off! I seem to have won a great victory …
FWIW Bob I think I largely agree with your general direction here (although not all your arguments). There are multiple strains and sources in the NT, they are not all consistent, and some are late, but the stories that seem to go back to the real Jesus portray a man in a hurry: the kingdom of god is at hand. It will come before the present generation tastes death, you must put your own house in order before it arrives like a thief in the night. Obey the law, whose essence is love your neighbour as yourself and love god, and leave the judging to Him: the beam in your own eye is what should concern you. The end is nigh. Forgive, repent, prepare.