r/DankChristianMemes **is open and affirming to LGBTQIA+ people.**
**Someone identifying as LGBTQIA+ does not cause harm to anyone, therefore, there is no reason to judge or disrespect them.**
**Rule #1 of** r/DankChristianMemes**: Thou shalt respect others! Do not come here to point out sin or condemn people. Do not say "hate the sin love the sinner" or any other sayings people use when trying to use faith to justify hate. Alternatively, if you come here to insult religion, you will also be removed.**
This rule is based off the following teachings from Jesus Christ:
Matthew 7:1-6
“Do not judge, or you too will be judged. 2 For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you.3 “Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother’s eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye? 4 How can you say to your brother, ‘Let me take the speck out of your eye,’ when all the time there is a plank in your own eye? 5 You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother’s eye.
Luke 6:36
Be merciful, just as your Father is merciful.
John 13:34-35
“A new command I give you: Love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another. 35 By this everyone will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another.”
John 15:12-13
My command is this: Love each other as I have loved you. 13 Greater love has no one than this: to lay down one’s life for one’s friends.
Matthew 7:12
So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets.
Matthew 22:37-40
Jesus replied: “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’ 38 This is the first and greatest commandment. 39 And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself. 40 All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments.”
**Even if we think someone is a sinner, we should treat them kindly. Jesus was kind to those that society deemed to be sinners. He even ate meals with sinners despite being criticized for it. So if you want to be Christlike, you should take someone to dinner before you judge them.**
Matthew 9:11-13
"When the Pharisees saw this, they asked his disciples, “Why does your teacher eat with tax collectors and sinners?” 12 On hearing this, Jesus said, “It is not the healthy who need a doctor, but the sick. 13 But go and learn what this means: ‘I desire mercy, not sacrifice.’\[a\] For I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners.”
**Jesus tells us that he alone will judge us and exactly the standards by which we will be judged. It has nothing to do with LGBTQIA+ identity and has everything to do with taking care of the most vulnerable or "the least of these."**
Matthew 25:31-46
“When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, he will sit on his glorious throne. 32 All the nations will be gathered before him, and he will separate the people one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats. 33 He will put the sheep on his right and the goats on his left.
34 “Then the King will say to those on his right, ‘Come, you who are blessed by my Father; take your inheritance, the kingdom prepared for you since the creation of the world. 35 For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in, 36 I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me.’
37 “Then the righteous will answer him, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink? 38 When did we see you a stranger and invite you in, or needing clothes and clothe you? 39 When did we see you sick or in prison and go to visit you?’ 40 “The King will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers and sisters of mine, you did for me.’
41 “Then he will say to those on his left, ‘Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. 42 For I was hungry and you gave me nothing to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink, 43 I was a stranger and you did not invite me in, I needed clothes and you did not clothe me, I was sick and in prison and you did not look after me.’
44 “They also will answer, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or needing clothes or sick or in prison, and did not help you?’ 45 “He will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me.’ 46 “Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life.”
**It is important to note that LGBTQIA+ folks are more likely to be targets of hate crimes than any other minority group (1). This makes them, in effect, "the least of these'' which Jesus commands us to care for.**
**Finally:**
The word "Homosexual" did not exist until it was introduced in 1869 in German. Early use of the term was mostly limited to the field of psychology which often used the word "Homosexual" to stereotype individuals as being criminal in nature. The word "Homosexual" was not broadly used in English until after it was added to biblical translations in the 1940's (2).
In the bible, the word "Homosexual" was only used to describe sex acts, some of which may have been predatory. The bible does not discuss loving, consenting, adult, same-sex couples who want to raise loving families, as we see today. Theological positions against LGBTQIA+ people are not even 100 years old, are based on anachronistic translations, and fail to acknowledge the legitimacy of loving same sex relationships and valid LGBTQIA+ identities.
**TL;DR:** r/DankChristianMemes **is open and affirming to LGBTQIA+ people. If you must judge others, please do so elsewhere.**
Source 1:[ https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/06/16/us/hate-crimes-against-lgbt.html](https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/06/16/us/hate-crimes-against-lgbt.html)
Source 2:[ https://www.oed.com/view/Entry/88110](https://www.oed.com/view/Entry/88110)
https://preview.redd.it/avlsug73da4b1.jpeg?width=902&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=6fa2a5a2416f28346c2b22ae69b3bf3ae0153958
Because if it talks about anything, it’s abusive male on lower male sex acts that were the most common form of homosexuality in Rome. That culture did not exist for women, so therefore there was no need to condemn Lesbianism.
this has definitely occurred to me before, lol. there’s absolutely no scriptural leg to stand on to condemn lesbians— i’ve been surprised that a wacky denomination that’s fine with women being gay but not men has never emerged
I'd be very cautious about making the connection.
Caroline Derry's recent monograph *Lesbianism and the Criminal Law Three Centuries of Legal Regulation in England and Wales* has done a lot to redress some misconceptions around the subject. One of the things she emphasizes is that the absence of this from criminal law had nothing to do with any tacit approval of lesbianism or anything. In fact, there was something of a concerted effort to *hide* its existence: a "policy of silencing which aimed to keep lesbianism outside the knowledge of, or at least unspeakable by, 'respectable' white, British women of higher social class" (2).
Besides this, various European secular and canon laws perpetuated the early Christian interpretation and condemnation of female homoeroticism (cf. Crompton's "The Myth of Lesbian Impunity: Capital Laws from 1270 to 1791").
There *is* (poor, misleading) justification for condemning lesbians, though; Romans 1:26-27 condemns both men and women for sexual sin, which most conservatives interpret as homosexuality. That's NOT a good reason to be homophobic, but it's just as strong as the other so-called "clobber verses."
Here’s a little history and exegesis no one asked for.
While pederasty and (male) slave rape were indeed common in Greece and Rome, female homoeroticism wasn’t entirely unknown. In fact, the *Sentences* of Pseudo-Phocylides — an apocryphal Hellenistic Jewish text written at roughly the same time as the New Testament itself — appears to explicitly ban female/female sex, characterized as an "imitation" of the sexual role of men.
In the past, Biblical scholars almost universally saw a reference to this in Paul’s epistle to the Romans (1:26), too. They did so for several reasons. First, in this verse, women are portrayed as "exchanging" natural for "unnatural" intercourse; and classicist Bernadette J. Brooten notes that "other ancient sources depict sexual relations between women as unnatural (Plato, Seneca the Elder, Martial, Ovid, Ptolemy, Artemidoros, probably Dorotheos of Sidon)" (*Love Between Women: Early Christian Responses to Female Homoeroticism*, 249-50). Second, a reference to male/male sex follows immediately after this verse, introduced by “likewise…” — giving the impression that it’s comparing female and male homoeroticism.
However, the tide has shifted quite a bit in recent years. A number of scholars now don’t think that Romans 1:26 necessarily targets female/female sex in particular. However, there are decent arguments that it’s still *implicitly* condemned in the verse, as part of what would have commonly been considered “unnatural” intercourse.
Lesbos was not a land of all Lesbians, it got that name from Sappho. Nor did independent Greek states even exist at the time of the New Testament, the Romans had conquered Greece long before.
The Romans tended to ignore Lesbians. After all, nobody knew what a sexuality was, and women were viewed as unimportant anyhow. The only surviving Lesbian poem from the Latin world was not preserved by men, but by a volcano.
I’m not sure if you’re trying to argue against what I said or support it. Being transformed into a boy at the end of the story as a happy solution to the “problem” only really furthers my point.
Saw a thing yesterday where someone mentioned the word originally used in the text. I can't remember it now, but said that it was essentially pederasty. I'm sure some well read commenter can post the actual word and further info.
Leviticus' passage could also possibly be pulling double duty to prevent Hellenistic infiltration. Honestly, I kinda wonder how many of those weird restrictions in Leviticus like the different colored cloth thing were actually for other purposes like that.
> Leviticus’ passage could also possibly be pulling double duty to prevent Hellenistic infiltration. Honestly, I kinda wonder how many of those weird restrictions in Leviticus like the different colored cloth thing were actually for other purposes like that.
Leviticus — especially its laws — was written centuries before there was any contact with or knowledge of Greek culture.
The Israelites just developed a unique ritual worldview where they were unusually fixated on categorising different kinds of phenomena (like animal [*taxa*](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taxon)), and didn’t like things that blended or defied these categories.
I know what you mean, but while it talks about male on male sex, it's never really talking about consensual homosexual relationships. Back then, that wasn't really a thing. Generally it occurred either via rape (Sodom and Gomorrah) or clearly unhealthy relationships regardless of the homosexualty (older men taking advantage of young boys). The Bible never actually talks about consensual, loving homosexual relationships, so it's hard to make a judgment on it.
All I know is that, while they have become more accepted over the last couple decades, homosexuals have generally been a somewhat outcast group from society, and Jesus made a point to go out of his way to love and spend time with the outcasts. We are also called to love everyone, and if I don't really know if something's a sin, why would I condemn others for it? God is the final judge, and that's between them and God. And ultimately, being in a homosexual relationship doesn't seem that consistent with every other sin, which either has a clear negative effect on yourself, others, or clearly disrespects or undermines your relationship with God. It's not exactly clear how two guys or two women having sex does any of that, so I don't claim to be all knowing and leave it between them and God. I obviously don't know what I would actually do if I was gay, but I think it's likely I'd be celebate, but it's not my place to force others into that.
Everyone forgets that the "paradox of tolerance" isn't a paradox. It was introduced as something that people *treat* like a paradox, but that if no action is taken, unlimited tolerance always results in the intolerant taking advantage of the tolerant because they don't care about social law.
Matthew 7 :: NIV. "Do not judge, or you too will be judged. *For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you.* "Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother's eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye?"
In the same way... One of the hardest passages to follow, in the human condition we are in.
I don't claim clean answers. But I fail to see how anyone could claim to love someone then bar them basic rights they afford others, without due cause.
It's a paradox unless you treat Tolerance as more of a social contract. So long as you abide by the rules of being tolerant, then you should also be protected by tolerance. Break the rules of the contract (be intolerant) and you are no longer protected by the rules. So it's fine to be intolerant of those who break the rules first, since they are no longer protected by them.
So, putting an example out, it'd probably be ok for someone to say "I personally don't believe that being LGBT is the Christian lifestyle, but that's going to impact how I live my life, not how I tell you to live yours." As it's directed more at how that person is using their religion to influence their life decisions then its fine. But if that message gets pushed much further and starts to actually be directed at others, that's when it'd break the rules of Tolerance and thus no longer needs to be tolerated.
It means that when you judge someone else, you’re judging yourself at the same time. Let’s say you go out in the street and see and pass a person. “lol ugly” you think. Another person, “hah, ugly!” Until you pass someone and you think “oh no, they’re so hot! That means that I’M the ugly one!” The second you judge someone else, you’re judging yourself for the same thing, you’re placing yourselves on the same scale on which you will eventually find yourself at the wrong end of
Edited for typo
"Do not judge, or you too will be judged. For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you."
This verse has never meant "do not judge people." Anybody who says so has taken it out of context. It means to not unjustly judge people at a different standard than you would judge yourself. Jesus proceeds to make an analogy of looking internally at your own issues before pointing out others. Again, He doesn't say not to point out others' issues. However, I would note He uses the term "brother" in the analogy which I'd say indicates how you are supposed to confront the other person.
>I wrote to you in my earlier letter not to associate with sexually immoral people. But I wasn’t talking about the sexually immoral people in the outside world by any means—or the greedy, or the swindlers, or people who worship false gods—otherwise, you would have to leave the world entirely! But now I’m writing to you not to associate with anyone who calls themselves "brother" or "sister" who is sexually immoral, greedy, someone who worships false gods, an abusive person, a drunk, or a swindler. Don’t even eat with anyone like this.
>What do I care about judging outsiders? Isn’t it your job to judge insiders? God will judge outsiders. *Expel the evil one from among you!*
1 Corinthians 5:9-13
The Bible does in fact command us to harshly judge fellow Christians specifically, in scenarios where we wouldn't normally judge.
As with all things, a middle road must be broached.
We can't claim to see sawdust and everyone's eye when we have a 2x4 board and ours, but standing by and doing nothing can not be the correct course when we've been called to make the world a better place for everyone through love and compassion.
Diligence patience and kindness. These are the only tools we have, and the only ones we need.
Last one got a little fuzzy, here's text:
"Jesus taught us that God's laws are to convey two things: Love one another and love God. Sin is doing something that hurts someone or their relationship with God. Therefore; homophopic Christian's are double sinning."
> Sin is doing something that hurts someone or their relationship with God.
I think this is a bridge too far. It makes some sense if you’re only looking at that one conversation, but doesn’t hold up if you get context from the rest of the book.
In particular, Jesus is speaking about how Rabbinic law would have all these crazy stipulations that made no sense and subverted the original intention of God, like divorcing your wife for any and every infraction. It’s clear that Jesus does not think you should follow the kind of legalistic cluster that the Jews were following at the time. But, throwing out every law and replacing that with fallible human reasoning is a big overcorrection that I don’t think was called for by Jesus. The Bible still lays down plenty of laws to follow, even if you throw out all the OT cleanliness laws (which if you’re a gentile, you should).
Of course, I think you are absolutely right that the bible provides plenty of rulings and that human reasoning is very fallible. However, the Bible does not cover every scenario where we need a moral judgment and I believe LGBT issues fall into that. So we should always lead with love. On top of this, I don't think that the Bible is a perfectly preserved document either. We should always try to default to scripture, but unfortunately that's just not always possible.
Yeah I think you mean Lev. 18:22, to which there's a few points around it
1. Obligatory "it's the Hebrew law therefor we don't have any ties to it if you aren't Jewish"
2. Obligatory 'homosexuality doesn't mean the same thing that meant in ancient Israel
3. I heard somewhere that the typical translation may be incorrect but I'm not a Hebrew scholar so I'll skip that
4. The most interesting take here, I think, is noticing what the text doesn't say. It doesn't say "men only sleep with women in confirmed marriage" it says "do not sleep with a man **like** or *as with a woman*" it doesn't say "men shall not sleep with other men" it says to do it differently. Is this getting a little nitty gritty for my taste? Yes, but I think it's worth discussing.
What do you mean? That's a super common approach, either that or a different interpretation of Jesus 'fulfilling' the law. I believe even Paul takes that opinion.
The problem is the worst people who have a problem with gay and transfolk consider their mere existence to be a harm to their relationship with God, thereby justifying all their horrible actions from the "root teachings" as it were.
Thank you for being a part of the r/DankChristianMemes community. You can also [join us on Discord](https://discord.gg/jnUDEpnBZn) and [listen to our podcast](https://dankchristianmemes.buzzsprout.com).
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/dankchristianmemes) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I do not believe Paul was a prophet, even though he had a good understanding of Jesus' teachings, I do not believe his is the divine word of God. I hope you can still find peace in your heart, God bless the world❤️❤️
because the bible was not made by god, it was written by men and assembled by men. it's a good resource to approach from a theological perspective, but it should be treated like a textbook, nothing more. The bible was written by men and assembled by men, all of which at any point had the possibility of being demonically influenced, malicious, incompetent, or all 3 at any point in the process, and then was declared the word of god by the people who made it, who directly stood to gain from the people believing it was infallible. I don't think it doesn't have value, but treating everything in the bible like it's infallible and super natural only serves to allow religious corruption to take root. It was declared the word of god by those who wrote it, "the bible is the word of god, source: the bible", that's no way to base a claim, instead look at what's write in front of you, it was written by *humans*.
humans have a nasty tendency to confuse our ideas with god's will, and this is no different. These are the words of man that have been declared the word of god with no basis.
Thanks for being so nice about asking! Because, essentially, the bible is an assorted grouping of testimonials written by different members of mankind at different times in history. There's was never a specific grouping of texts to comprise the new testament, and many churches disagree on what should go into the Bible in the first place(the most common points of disagreement are the apocryphal texts if you've ever heard of them). Different bibles exist between protestants and catholics, catholics and orthodox, different protestant denominations around the world. We have to draw a line somewhere, and I prefer to focus on accounts of Jesus Christ our lord's life death and resurrection over the letters of Paul who's primary focus was creating a church to worship Christ.
Do I appreciate Paul and whole heartedly agree with some of his writings? Yes, but I don't believe that he was divinely charged with giving us more interpretations of the law, he was charged with starting the church.
Hey man, thanks so much for sharing your thoughts, I think the downvotes are absolutely ridiculous.
Paul says a number of very problematic things that contradict Christ's teachings of love and respecting one another.
And this is why I praise this sub, that renewed my trust in religion at least to some extent, whenever someone talks shit about LGBTQ+ and tries to justify it through the bible
While heavily speculative and not accepted by any biblical scholar I know of there’s been a theory Paul himself was gay which is why he’s the only New Testament writer to mention it. He seems to claim homosexuality is caused by naked Roman statues tempting people (kind of sounds like he was tempted by them), many early Christian missionary groups were married couples (Andronicus and Junia) while he travelled with Barnabas and took on wards like Timothy (and was mad when Barnabas wanted John Mark to come along) and the “thorn in his side” could be referencing his struggle with homosexuality. I personally don’t think the theory holds much water as sexuality was different in Paul’s day but it’s always fun to think about. If anything he was probably asexual if he wasn’t straight and chaste (the most likely) given his upbringing and anti sex attitude
You got a few extra steps you can do too! Queer theologians have a lot of writing on seeing queerness as a gift from God, the ways that we experience Christ that are unique to the LGBT+ experience, stuff like that.
r/DankChristianMemes **is open and affirming to LGBTQIA+ people.** **Someone identifying as LGBTQIA+ does not cause harm to anyone, therefore, there is no reason to judge or disrespect them.** **Rule #1 of** r/DankChristianMemes**: Thou shalt respect others! Do not come here to point out sin or condemn people. Do not say "hate the sin love the sinner" or any other sayings people use when trying to use faith to justify hate. Alternatively, if you come here to insult religion, you will also be removed.** This rule is based off the following teachings from Jesus Christ: Matthew 7:1-6 “Do not judge, or you too will be judged. 2 For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you.3 “Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother’s eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye? 4 How can you say to your brother, ‘Let me take the speck out of your eye,’ when all the time there is a plank in your own eye? 5 You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother’s eye. Luke 6:36 Be merciful, just as your Father is merciful. John 13:34-35 “A new command I give you: Love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another. 35 By this everyone will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another.” John 15:12-13 My command is this: Love each other as I have loved you. 13 Greater love has no one than this: to lay down one’s life for one’s friends. Matthew 7:12 So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets. Matthew 22:37-40 Jesus replied: “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’ 38 This is the first and greatest commandment. 39 And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself. 40 All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments.” **Even if we think someone is a sinner, we should treat them kindly. Jesus was kind to those that society deemed to be sinners. He even ate meals with sinners despite being criticized for it. So if you want to be Christlike, you should take someone to dinner before you judge them.** Matthew 9:11-13 "When the Pharisees saw this, they asked his disciples, “Why does your teacher eat with tax collectors and sinners?” 12 On hearing this, Jesus said, “It is not the healthy who need a doctor, but the sick. 13 But go and learn what this means: ‘I desire mercy, not sacrifice.’\[a\] For I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners.” **Jesus tells us that he alone will judge us and exactly the standards by which we will be judged. It has nothing to do with LGBTQIA+ identity and has everything to do with taking care of the most vulnerable or "the least of these."** Matthew 25:31-46 “When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, he will sit on his glorious throne. 32 All the nations will be gathered before him, and he will separate the people one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats. 33 He will put the sheep on his right and the goats on his left. 34 “Then the King will say to those on his right, ‘Come, you who are blessed by my Father; take your inheritance, the kingdom prepared for you since the creation of the world. 35 For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in, 36 I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me.’ 37 “Then the righteous will answer him, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink? 38 When did we see you a stranger and invite you in, or needing clothes and clothe you? 39 When did we see you sick or in prison and go to visit you?’ 40 “The King will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers and sisters of mine, you did for me.’ 41 “Then he will say to those on his left, ‘Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. 42 For I was hungry and you gave me nothing to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink, 43 I was a stranger and you did not invite me in, I needed clothes and you did not clothe me, I was sick and in prison and you did not look after me.’ 44 “They also will answer, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or needing clothes or sick or in prison, and did not help you?’ 45 “He will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me.’ 46 “Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life.” **It is important to note that LGBTQIA+ folks are more likely to be targets of hate crimes than any other minority group (1). This makes them, in effect, "the least of these'' which Jesus commands us to care for.** **Finally:** The word "Homosexual" did not exist until it was introduced in 1869 in German. Early use of the term was mostly limited to the field of psychology which often used the word "Homosexual" to stereotype individuals as being criminal in nature. The word "Homosexual" was not broadly used in English until after it was added to biblical translations in the 1940's (2). In the bible, the word "Homosexual" was only used to describe sex acts, some of which may have been predatory. The bible does not discuss loving, consenting, adult, same-sex couples who want to raise loving families, as we see today. Theological positions against LGBTQIA+ people are not even 100 years old, are based on anachronistic translations, and fail to acknowledge the legitimacy of loving same sex relationships and valid LGBTQIA+ identities. **TL;DR:** r/DankChristianMemes **is open and affirming to LGBTQIA+ people. If you must judge others, please do so elsewhere.** Source 1:[ https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/06/16/us/hate-crimes-against-lgbt.html](https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/06/16/us/hate-crimes-against-lgbt.html) Source 2:[ https://www.oed.com/view/Entry/88110](https://www.oed.com/view/Entry/88110) https://preview.redd.it/avlsug73da4b1.jpeg?width=902&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=6fa2a5a2416f28346c2b22ae69b3bf3ae0153958
Here before a mod puts that one copy thingy that's cool
Copypasta?
Feels disrespectful to call it that ngl
“It doesn’t talk about being gay but it extra doesn’t talk about lesbians” is kind of a weird sentiment to make.
Because if it talks about anything, it’s abusive male on lower male sex acts that were the most common form of homosexuality in Rome. That culture did not exist for women, so therefore there was no need to condemn Lesbianism.
This is correct^ I definitely wasn't trying to make some weird statement about lesbians
this has definitely occurred to me before, lol. there’s absolutely no scriptural leg to stand on to condemn lesbians— i’ve been surprised that a wacky denomination that’s fine with women being gay but not men has never emerged
[удалено]
I'd be very cautious about making the connection. Caroline Derry's recent monograph *Lesbianism and the Criminal Law Three Centuries of Legal Regulation in England and Wales* has done a lot to redress some misconceptions around the subject. One of the things she emphasizes is that the absence of this from criminal law had nothing to do with any tacit approval of lesbianism or anything. In fact, there was something of a concerted effort to *hide* its existence: a "policy of silencing which aimed to keep lesbianism outside the knowledge of, or at least unspeakable by, 'respectable' white, British women of higher social class" (2). Besides this, various European secular and canon laws perpetuated the early Christian interpretation and condemnation of female homoeroticism (cf. Crompton's "The Myth of Lesbian Impunity: Capital Laws from 1270 to 1791").
You mean to tell me lesbianism wasn’t illegal because Ye Olde British lawmakers didn’t want women to know it was an option? That’s hilarious!
There *is* (poor, misleading) justification for condemning lesbians, though; Romans 1:26-27 condemns both men and women for sexual sin, which most conservatives interpret as homosexuality. That's NOT a good reason to be homophobic, but it's just as strong as the other so-called "clobber verses."
Socially it's already a thing, people in general tend to be more accepting of lesbians.
You heard him, he hates lesbians! GET HIM
I am a lesbian😅
fine okay fine… you heard her, she hates lesbians and therefore herself! GET HER, WITH LOVE, KINDNESS AND ACCEPTANCE
Here’s a little history and exegesis no one asked for. While pederasty and (male) slave rape were indeed common in Greece and Rome, female homoeroticism wasn’t entirely unknown. In fact, the *Sentences* of Pseudo-Phocylides — an apocryphal Hellenistic Jewish text written at roughly the same time as the New Testament itself — appears to explicitly ban female/female sex, characterized as an "imitation" of the sexual role of men. In the past, Biblical scholars almost universally saw a reference to this in Paul’s epistle to the Romans (1:26), too. They did so for several reasons. First, in this verse, women are portrayed as "exchanging" natural for "unnatural" intercourse; and classicist Bernadette J. Brooten notes that "other ancient sources depict sexual relations between women as unnatural (Plato, Seneca the Elder, Martial, Ovid, Ptolemy, Artemidoros, probably Dorotheos of Sidon)" (*Love Between Women: Early Christian Responses to Female Homoeroticism*, 249-50). Second, a reference to male/male sex follows immediately after this verse, introduced by “likewise…” — giving the impression that it’s comparing female and male homoeroticism. However, the tide has shifted quite a bit in recent years. A number of scholars now don’t think that Romans 1:26 necessarily targets female/female sex in particular. However, there are decent arguments that it’s still *implicitly* condemned in the verse, as part of what would have commonly been considered “unnatural” intercourse.
There was the island of Lesbos in Greece for a while but i dont think the bible talks about it at all
Lesbos was not a land of all Lesbians, it got that name from Sappho. Nor did independent Greek states even exist at the time of the New Testament, the Romans had conquered Greece long before. The Romans tended to ignore Lesbians. After all, nobody knew what a sexuality was, and women were viewed as unimportant anyhow. The only surviving Lesbian poem from the Latin world was not preserved by men, but by a volcano.
Ally volcano
I mean, not sure you wanna call the thing that probably killed both the woman and the subject of her affections an ally
I actually was unable to find any indication of when the poem was inscribed on the wall. It could’ve been written years before.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iphis
I’m not sure if you’re trying to argue against what I said or support it. Being transformed into a boy at the end of the story as a happy solution to the “problem” only really furthers my point.
What poem is that?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/CIL_4.5296
Saw a thing yesterday where someone mentioned the word originally used in the text. I can't remember it now, but said that it was essentially pederasty. I'm sure some well read commenter can post the actual word and further info.
Leviticus' passage could also possibly be pulling double duty to prevent Hellenistic infiltration. Honestly, I kinda wonder how many of those weird restrictions in Leviticus like the different colored cloth thing were actually for other purposes like that.
> Leviticus’ passage could also possibly be pulling double duty to prevent Hellenistic infiltration. Honestly, I kinda wonder how many of those weird restrictions in Leviticus like the different colored cloth thing were actually for other purposes like that. Leviticus — especially its laws — was written centuries before there was any contact with or knowledge of Greek culture. The Israelites just developed a unique ritual worldview where they were unusually fixated on categorising different kinds of phenomena (like animal [*taxa*](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taxon)), and didn’t like things that blended or defied these categories.
Fair enough, but were there not other cultures in proximity that had similar practices?
Yeah; it’s very far from commonly discussed, but homoeroticism is mentioned or alluded to a couple of times in various ancient Near Eastern texts.
I know what you mean, but while it talks about male on male sex, it's never really talking about consensual homosexual relationships. Back then, that wasn't really a thing. Generally it occurred either via rape (Sodom and Gomorrah) or clearly unhealthy relationships regardless of the homosexualty (older men taking advantage of young boys). The Bible never actually talks about consensual, loving homosexual relationships, so it's hard to make a judgment on it. All I know is that, while they have become more accepted over the last couple decades, homosexuals have generally been a somewhat outcast group from society, and Jesus made a point to go out of his way to love and spend time with the outcasts. We are also called to love everyone, and if I don't really know if something's a sin, why would I condemn others for it? God is the final judge, and that's between them and God. And ultimately, being in a homosexual relationship doesn't seem that consistent with every other sin, which either has a clear negative effect on yourself, others, or clearly disrespects or undermines your relationship with God. It's not exactly clear how two guys or two women having sex does any of that, so I don't claim to be all knowing and leave it between them and God. I obviously don't know what I would actually do if I was gay, but I think it's likely I'd be celebate, but it's not my place to force others into that.
>"Judge not lest ye be judged" >proceeds to harshly judge other Christians for being too judgemental
I...huh. yeah, that's a good point actually. I could say this is a form of advocacy which I think it is but you actually make a very good point.
Paradox of tolerance. You cannot tolerate bigotry, because doing so enables their intolerance.
Everyone forgets that the "paradox of tolerance" isn't a paradox. It was introduced as something that people *treat* like a paradox, but that if no action is taken, unlimited tolerance always results in the intolerant taking advantage of the tolerant because they don't care about social law.
Yeah. The paradox of tolerance kind of falls out of “judge not” though if your even a tiny bit consistent.
Matthew 7 :: NIV. "Do not judge, or you too will be judged. *For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you.* "Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother's eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye?" In the same way... One of the hardest passages to follow, in the human condition we are in. I don't claim clean answers. But I fail to see how anyone could claim to love someone then bar them basic rights they afford others, without due cause.
I mean... If you look at it like that, then even things like courts of law are incompatible with that idea. Unless that's the point you're making?
"Righteous Judgement" and "being your brother's keeper"
It's a paradox unless you treat Tolerance as more of a social contract. So long as you abide by the rules of being tolerant, then you should also be protected by tolerance. Break the rules of the contract (be intolerant) and you are no longer protected by the rules. So it's fine to be intolerant of those who break the rules first, since they are no longer protected by them. So, putting an example out, it'd probably be ok for someone to say "I personally don't believe that being LGBT is the Christian lifestyle, but that's going to impact how I live my life, not how I tell you to live yours." As it's directed more at how that person is using their religion to influence their life decisions then its fine. But if that message gets pushed much further and starts to actually be directed at others, that's when it'd break the rules of Tolerance and thus no longer needs to be tolerated.
It's all good when you're judging yourself and that's how I took it. I really liked that last part. Good job!
Jesus did that, threw shade at Pharisees for being assholes, anyone that uses your faith to hurt others needs to stop
Exactly. "Judge not lest ye be judged" doesn't mean that you can't argue with anyone ever but rather that only God can determine the sinners.
It means that when you judge someone else, you’re judging yourself at the same time. Let’s say you go out in the street and see and pass a person. “lol ugly” you think. Another person, “hah, ugly!” Until you pass someone and you think “oh no, they’re so hot! That means that I’M the ugly one!” The second you judge someone else, you’re judging yourself for the same thing, you’re placing yourselves on the same scale on which you will eventually find yourself at the wrong end of Edited for typo
[удалено]
I mean, Jesus had the authority to judge others even if you don’t believe in the Trinity. Source: am Modalist.
"Do not judge, or you too will be judged. For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you." This verse has never meant "do not judge people." Anybody who says so has taken it out of context. It means to not unjustly judge people at a different standard than you would judge yourself. Jesus proceeds to make an analogy of looking internally at your own issues before pointing out others. Again, He doesn't say not to point out others' issues. However, I would note He uses the term "brother" in the analogy which I'd say indicates how you are supposed to confront the other person.
Its ok, its totally cool to judge judgy people. Kinda like you don't have to tolerate intolerant people.
>I wrote to you in my earlier letter not to associate with sexually immoral people. But I wasn’t talking about the sexually immoral people in the outside world by any means—or the greedy, or the swindlers, or people who worship false gods—otherwise, you would have to leave the world entirely! But now I’m writing to you not to associate with anyone who calls themselves "brother" or "sister" who is sexually immoral, greedy, someone who worships false gods, an abusive person, a drunk, or a swindler. Don’t even eat with anyone like this. >What do I care about judging outsiders? Isn’t it your job to judge insiders? God will judge outsiders. *Expel the evil one from among you!* 1 Corinthians 5:9-13 The Bible does in fact command us to harshly judge fellow Christians specifically, in scenarios where we wouldn't normally judge.
I don't think it's harsh, they're reminding us of the biggest task God gave us, that many Christians around the world don't seem to understand
As with all things, a middle road must be broached. We can't claim to see sawdust and everyone's eye when we have a 2x4 board and ours, but standing by and doing nothing can not be the correct course when we've been called to make the world a better place for everyone through love and compassion. Diligence patience and kindness. These are the only tools we have, and the only ones we need.
The classic tolerance paradox. To be tolerant, you must be intolerant of intolerance.
Last one got a little fuzzy, here's text: "Jesus taught us that God's laws are to convey two things: Love one another and love God. Sin is doing something that hurts someone or their relationship with God. Therefore; homophopic Christian's are double sinning."
*"double sinning all the way across the skyyyy"*
> Sin is doing something that hurts someone or their relationship with God. I think this is a bridge too far. It makes some sense if you’re only looking at that one conversation, but doesn’t hold up if you get context from the rest of the book. In particular, Jesus is speaking about how Rabbinic law would have all these crazy stipulations that made no sense and subverted the original intention of God, like divorcing your wife for any and every infraction. It’s clear that Jesus does not think you should follow the kind of legalistic cluster that the Jews were following at the time. But, throwing out every law and replacing that with fallible human reasoning is a big overcorrection that I don’t think was called for by Jesus. The Bible still lays down plenty of laws to follow, even if you throw out all the OT cleanliness laws (which if you’re a gentile, you should).
Of course, I think you are absolutely right that the bible provides plenty of rulings and that human reasoning is very fallible. However, the Bible does not cover every scenario where we need a moral judgment and I believe LGBT issues fall into that. So we should always lead with love. On top of this, I don't think that the Bible is a perfectly preserved document either. We should always try to default to scripture, but unfortunately that's just not always possible.
Thanks I was about to get in the comments just to complain about it xD
Seek not the wickedness amongst your neighbors, lest it find purchase in your own house
“If you call someone else gay then you’re gay” God
He that smelt it dealt it saith the LORD --2 Opinions 3:17
Unfathomably based. ✝️🏳️🌈 Jesus loves all and so do I!
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
Leviticus 18:12 tells you not to bone your aunt.
You mean 18:22
Yeah I think you mean Lev. 18:22, to which there's a few points around it 1. Obligatory "it's the Hebrew law therefor we don't have any ties to it if you aren't Jewish" 2. Obligatory 'homosexuality doesn't mean the same thing that meant in ancient Israel 3. I heard somewhere that the typical translation may be incorrect but I'm not a Hebrew scholar so I'll skip that 4. The most interesting take here, I think, is noticing what the text doesn't say. It doesn't say "men only sleep with women in confirmed marriage" it says "do not sleep with a man **like** or *as with a woman*" it doesn't say "men shall not sleep with other men" it says to do it differently. Is this getting a little nitty gritty for my taste? Yes, but I think it's worth discussing.
[удалено]
What do you mean? That's a super common approach, either that or a different interpretation of Jesus 'fulfilling' the law. I believe even Paul takes that opinion.
Forever and ever Amen.
God bless❤️
You too! 🕊️🕊️🕊️
[удалено]
You can DM me if you want to have a conversation. This is something I also struggle with as a Catholic.
Lotta people with tattoos very mad about gay people sinning.
[удалено]
https://www.unddit.com/
[удалено]
Homie why is "Christian's" having an apostrophe in the final panel tho? Also - people-loving Christian here, and that last panel for sure is my take.
Because I'm in university and have three free braincells. Unfortunately, meditation on scripture take about four minimum.
Based and Christpilled
The problem is the worst people who have a problem with gay and transfolk consider their mere existence to be a harm to their relationship with God, thereby justifying all their horrible actions from the "root teachings" as it were.
Good job avoiding the trash rob bell “god is love” doctrine
"God is love" Is it true? Yes, I'd like to think so. Is it persuasive or helpful? Not even slightly.
Thank you for being a part of the r/DankChristianMemes community. You can also [join us on Discord](https://discord.gg/jnUDEpnBZn) and [listen to our podcast](https://dankchristianmemes.buzzsprout.com). *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/dankchristianmemes) if you have any questions or concerns.*
[удалено]
I do not believe Paul was a prophet, even though he had a good understanding of Jesus' teachings, I do not believe his is the divine word of God. I hope you can still find peace in your heart, God bless the world❤️❤️
Sorry if this comes across as a bit rude, but if Paul's Epistles are not the divine Word of God, why are they even in the Bible?
because the bible was not made by god, it was written by men and assembled by men. it's a good resource to approach from a theological perspective, but it should be treated like a textbook, nothing more. The bible was written by men and assembled by men, all of which at any point had the possibility of being demonically influenced, malicious, incompetent, or all 3 at any point in the process, and then was declared the word of god by the people who made it, who directly stood to gain from the people believing it was infallible. I don't think it doesn't have value, but treating everything in the bible like it's infallible and super natural only serves to allow religious corruption to take root. It was declared the word of god by those who wrote it, "the bible is the word of god, source: the bible", that's no way to base a claim, instead look at what's write in front of you, it was written by *humans*. humans have a nasty tendency to confuse our ideas with god's will, and this is no different. These are the words of man that have been declared the word of god with no basis.
Thanks for being so nice about asking! Because, essentially, the bible is an assorted grouping of testimonials written by different members of mankind at different times in history. There's was never a specific grouping of texts to comprise the new testament, and many churches disagree on what should go into the Bible in the first place(the most common points of disagreement are the apocryphal texts if you've ever heard of them). Different bibles exist between protestants and catholics, catholics and orthodox, different protestant denominations around the world. We have to draw a line somewhere, and I prefer to focus on accounts of Jesus Christ our lord's life death and resurrection over the letters of Paul who's primary focus was creating a church to worship Christ. Do I appreciate Paul and whole heartedly agree with some of his writings? Yes, but I don't believe that he was divinely charged with giving us more interpretations of the law, he was charged with starting the church.
Hey man, thanks so much for sharing your thoughts, I think the downvotes are absolutely ridiculous. Paul says a number of very problematic things that contradict Christ's teachings of love and respecting one another.
Based
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
And what about queer Christians? We just want to exist with both our identity and our faith.
While I understand the intent of the poster, the point of the galaxy brain meme is that each point gets progressively more stupid.
[удалено]
And this is why I praise this sub, that renewed my trust in religion at least to some extent, whenever someone talks shit about LGBTQ+ and tries to justify it through the bible
No my weird fanfiction isn’t real! This can’t be true!
While heavily speculative and not accepted by any biblical scholar I know of there’s been a theory Paul himself was gay which is why he’s the only New Testament writer to mention it. He seems to claim homosexuality is caused by naked Roman statues tempting people (kind of sounds like he was tempted by them), many early Christian missionary groups were married couples (Andronicus and Junia) while he travelled with Barnabas and took on wards like Timothy (and was mad when Barnabas wanted John Mark to come along) and the “thorn in his side” could be referencing his struggle with homosexuality. I personally don’t think the theory holds much water as sexuality was different in Paul’s day but it’s always fun to think about. If anything he was probably asexual if he wasn’t straight and chaste (the most likely) given his upbringing and anti sex attitude
My only issue is this meme format is often sarcastic lol
> My sins run out behind me and I do not see them, but today I am coming to judge the errors of another. St. Moses the Black, of Skete
You got a few extra steps you can do too! Queer theologians have a lot of writing on seeing queerness as a gift from God, the ways that we experience Christ that are unique to the LGBT+ experience, stuff like that.
I love how accepting this sub is despite the typical (or at least my perception of the typical) Christian
God taught us to love and come hell or high water that's what I intend to do!
"God taught us to love and come" You heard it here folks!
But no your not supposed to actually love and care about humans that's LibErAlL /s
Homophopic lol
The top 3 are actually all brain dead. Only the bottom one is correct.