• CancerMancer@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    edit-2
    6 days ago

    Serious question: is the morality of homosexuality actually brought into question in the old/new testaments, or is this one of those things where people have chosen to interpret some shit creatively? Seen quite a few of those creative takes, like the people claiming the “hot or cold” or “camel through the eye of the needle” bits are actually some obscure references to local conditions rather than actual moral lessons.

    • Flax@feddit.uk
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      6 days ago

      Bible is pretty clear.

      1 Corinthians 6:9

      Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality,

      Romans 1:26-27

      For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature; and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error.

      As for the “hot and cold”, that type of thing is up for interpretation, although I hold that hot water is good and so is cold water. I believe that’s what Jesus was referring to.

      The “Camel through an eye of a needle” with the “eye of the needle” being a gate is a total myth made up by the rich to try and justify their greed. Jesus meant what we read it as today. For extra clarification, the original greek even refers to the word “needle” with different words, one is surgical, I believe the other one is fishing related. So it couldn’t be a place. Jesus meant what He said - it is easier for a camel to go through an eye of a needle than a rich person to get into heaven.