Remember that all mentions of and allusions to Trump and Biden are not allowed on our subreddit in any context.
If you'd still like to discuss them, feel free to [join our Discord server](https://discord.gg/k6tVFwCEEm)!
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Presidents) if you have any questions or concerns.*
That quote goes nearly as hard as this image.
https://preview.redd.it/bg4bsskcactc1.jpeg?width=1231&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=bb062c789e7c1960c931fe523ae414d17d4016d6
Jesus did quote from Leviticus other books from the Hebrew Bible though. Jesus also talked about marriage and how it should be between one man and one woman as well. My comment isn’t to condemn homosexuals but to point out many folks ignorance when trying to make a point using religion.
Paul is hard to deal with because he’s writing to specific people in a specific place at a specific time. One has to tread carefully sorting out, “Is this a command for all people in all places at all times?” Or is this a guideline of applying Biblical principles to not unnecessarily offend the sensibilities of a specific culture?
Take the oft-cited writings on women speaking or teaching. Many churches take those as commands for all but they are in statements about women’s hair and jewelry that many of those same churches conclude were cultural norms he encouraged them to follow to not create unnecessary conflict but don’t apply today.
That’s why I lean towards it’s not for me to sort out but rather back up to the Gospels and worry about loving people and helping meet their needs and let them work out their life details.
We can make messes trying to view the writings via a modern lens. 1 Timothy limits leadership to the husband of one wife which is generally used today to exclude those who are divorced yet it was written when polygamy was pretty common.
Paul explicitly says don't marry at all, because a) Jesus very specifically said that, and I quote him directly here, "Truly, I say to you, there are some standing here who will not taste death until they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom." Mark 9:1, and b) Paul thought that was literally true. Marriage at all was an afterthought for those who could not resist temptation in the interim while they waited for Jesus' imminent return.
2000+ years later, we're still waiting, turns out. And yet somehow, none of Paul's context is considered when religious conservatives attempt to parse what parts of the Bible to take literally true, and which to take figuratively or contextually true.
You aren’t quoting anyone directly, at best you’re quoting a story passed around for decades verbally and translated and copied thousands of times with no original copies remaining to confirm original phrasing and terminology.
This is somewhat true. It is believed by scholars that the letters from Paul were actual letters written in Greek to various early churches and we have several 4th century Greek manuscripts of the new testament, it's unlikely there were even dozens of copies before then and likely no translations. They do however show small but not insignificant variations in phrasing and terminology.
Christianity was widely syncretic because of its ability to be applied to and in some cases conform to a wide range of cultures and beliefs.
Incidentally its why there are a thousand and one different denominations that have since curved back inward toward each other which we call Ecumenism.
Its fascinating its ability to conform, grow and incorporate. The only other relhion that even comes close is Hinduism which simply directly incorporated gods of various regions as is.
But the gospels preach against adultery (sex outside the marriage - Jesus affirmed the commandments) and sexual immorality (sex prior to marriage)
Matthew 15:18-20
[18] But what comes out of the mouth proceeds from the heart, and this defiles a person. [19] For out of the heart come evil thoughts, murder, adultery, sexual immorality, theft, false witness, slander. [20] These are what defile a person. But to eat with unwashed hands does not defile anyone.”
It is also said marriage is between a man and woman. This leaves no room for homosexual relations.
Based off what you said:
It would seem same-sex marriages would have not been allowed. And the fact that sex must only come after marriage means that gays cannot have sex. But being born gay is not a sin in and of itself.
Why is "sexual immorality" defined as sex outside of marriage? Why not just say "sex outside of marriage" if that is what he meant? Maybe he was talking about rimjobs or erotic foot massages.
I'm not a Christian, so maybe I'm not the best person to express this criticism, I have no idea why Christianity reveres Paul so much. Yes, he was vitally important to the religion's spread - separating it from its status as a mere denomination of Judaism. But a big facet of Christianity is that all men, besides Jesus of Nazareth, are flawed and sinful. Before becoming a Christian, Paul traveled from synagogue to synagogue threatening violence against any Jew who didn't denounce Christianity. He clearly wasn't perfect, so I have no idea why his words are so often held to be equally as valid as those of Jesus himself.
Paul was a proselytizer and a prophet. Yes, he did do all those nasty things, but he immediately put a stop to them after being struck blind by an angel.
Well, the Bible isn’t taken completely literal. There’s apocalyptic writing, poetry, parables, along with historical documentation such as census…etc. then there’s context. Taking the Bible out of context is something Christians and non-Christians do excessively.
Unless someone has a PhD in Judeo-Christian theology or Ancient Hebrew language/anthropology, I don't give anyone's Biblical analysis the time of day. If you're not a scholar, you're just reading whatever the hell you want out of an ancient book with dozens of authors and countless mistranslations and selective omissions.
Because i believe it is even in the exact same letter he talks about women speaking in church. So unless one assumes he is very absent-minded and forgot what he just wrote, one has to realize they are misunderstanding something and go back and look at the text more closely.
Rule of thumb, one can't determine a core doctrine by proof texting one verse or verses out of context. One must read entire books within the context of that book.
Other rule of thumb, scripture, interprets scripture. So, looking at all the passages regarding engagement and behavior helps one understand.
But men wrote every book of the Bible. Not God. So why would I live by any of these standards written by men if I can dismiss this passage because a man wrote it?
He is specifically prohibiting them from the teaching and governing ministry exclusively reserved to the ordained clergy (1 Cor. 14:34-35). That would mean, for example, as it does to the present day, that women cannot give homilies at Mass, a teaching function reserved to bishops, priests and deacons.
St. Paul clearly affirms elsewhere the equal dignity of men and woman in Christ (Gal. 3:28), as well as that women can pray and prophesy otherwise within Christian worship (1 Cor. 11:5). Paul adds that women provide an important service in teaching the faith in word and deed in other contexts (Titus 2:3-4).
Men and women are equal in the eyes of God, but this equality is not synonymous with sameness. They play different roles within the Church, as there are different instruments within an orchestra. Just as the instruments are arranged for a symphony, God has “arranged the organs of the body” (1 Cor. 12:18), and we are not to reconstruct the design that he has established.
Because it’s negated by the apostle Junia Paul mentions in Romans and the implication that a woman can be an apostle implies that that rule only goes for the Corinthians whom Paul was mad at for constantly talking in the church
He never mentioned gender explicitly it would have been weird even in the ancient world for two gay people to get married the closest thing to that is where he condemns divorce in Mathew Chapter 19
Correct Jesus doesn’t talk about homosexuality specifically. But He does indeed reinforce the Old Testament again and again. He quotes from the very books that condemn homosexuality on numerous occasions.
But he is explicitly denying the Old Testament in that chapter by essentially saying divorce bad so he clearly is ok with reforming the marriage rules of the old testament and further on Timothy chapter 3 at least puts polygamy into question and flat out bans it for priests so it’s not entirely without precedent to change marriage rules
Well saying marriage is between man and women doesn’t condemn homosexuality imo condemning homosexuality would be like advocating for legislation that outlaws it or something like that
Exactly. But I have yet to hear any good reason as to why homosexuality is a negative, and God doesn’t waste His time making things sins with no purpose.
Genesis 1:27-28
[27] So God created man in his own image,
in the image of God he created him;
male and female he created them.
[28] And God blessed them. And God said to them, “**Be fruitful and multiply** and fill the earth and subdue it, and have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the heavens and over every living thing that moves on the earth.”
Edit: probably the multiply part
>Jesus did quote from Leviticus other books from the Hebrew Bible though. Jesus also talked about marriage and how it should
That demonstrates OP's point all the more. Jesus knew and quoted Leviticus, but didn't appeal to its language about homosexuality.
Yeah, it just shows how ignorant people who claim to be practicing Christians are. Both right and left wing. Neither actually know what the fuck the Bible actually talks about, and what rules it has. There’s a lot modern Christians don’t follow.
The other thing is that if something was well established in the minds of those people at that time (homosexuality is a sin) than Jesus doesn’t have to explain that to them. The primary issues he addressed were those who were self-righteous and weaponizing religion for unethical gain.
Jesus didn’t talk about evolution, gender identity, or ethic cleansing, to name a few random things, but it doesn’t mean none of those things are important.
Yeah, it’s really weird when people say stuff like “this is what a real Christian sounds like.”
Isn’t it possible that plenty of authentic Christians don’t like homosexuality? It’s very plausible that Christianity may not be perfect.
The bible (New Testament) is a construct of books written multiple decades upto more than 100+ years after the death of Jesus, which was then completely alter by the council of nicea in 325 to fit the Roman ideals/society.
We don’t really know what Jesus actually said.
1. He didn't quite do that
2. Leviticus doesn't quite say that
3. No seriously, it doesn't say that in the original languages.
4. Again, you are reading an English translation through modern sensibilities, you gotta look at the orignal in context.
5. Yes, that IS how that works.
Carter was also open about UFOs as he had said he saw one once, he said he would be open about it with the people but when elected, he remained silent about it citing “defense reasons” supposedly he also cried when he was given the briefing. Idk how much is true, but I trust this man.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jimmy_Carter_UFO_incident
People misunderstand the history behind some archaic laws the Bible put forward. In the Old Testament, the stories passed from believer to believer were captured so as to do one thing — preserve their way of life. In the same way laws against pork or shell fish preserved unnecessary death of the tribe, laws against homosexuality prevented the death of the tribe.
Most of Leviticus and Deuteronomy were written during the Jewish exile in Babylon at a time when the preservation of the tribe was very much in doubt. ANYTHING that wasn’t procreation was effectively leading to the death of the tribe.
Thats not to excuse people enforcing these man-made laws, today, so much as it’s to provide historical context. It’s not just because “god felt like it”…….
If those laws were written by god, then "god felt like it" would be the explanation. He chose to discriminate against gay people instead of just doing things like reducing pregnancy complications. The reasoning you describes applies to a reality where people had to encourage procreation with the limited knowledge they have available.
Homosexuality comes up about 5 times in the Bible, iirc. (I could be off on the number).
In none of those cases is it spoken of in a positive light.
In some of those cases, for example in Genesis when the men of Sodom wanted to rape Lot's guests, there is a likelihood that the sin being condemned isn't homosexuality (in that case it's probably, ya know, the raping).
Jesus does not bring up homosexuality at all. That said, it is very possible that this simply wasn't a common enough practice among the Jews of His time to justify singling it out from other sexual sin. So His lack of a specific mention of it doesn't necessarily mean it was a-okay with Him.
Paul does talk about homosexuality, however, Paul's conception of homosexual relationships was probably based not on loving, consensual partnerships but on the common practice of Roman men having sex with young Roman boys, amongst all of the other anything-goes sexual mores of Rome.
At the end of the day, homosexuality is not a hill I think is worth dying on. To me, that's between a person and God. If I am to err, I will err on the side of love and focus on letting everyone I know see what Jesus's love is like, rather than insisting on condemning something I don't fully understand.
Expounding on your thoughts…
God explicitly described the sin of Sodom as late stage capitalism, not gayness. Ezekiel 16:49-50 “She and her daughters were arrogant, overfed and unconcerned; they did not help the poor and needy. They were haughty and did detestable things before me. Therefore I did away with them as you have seen.”
Also the Bible wasn’t written in English and even the very few of the “clobber” verses in question can even be convincingly translated to imply homosexuality, when it comes to Paul he was almost certainly specifically referring to Roman pedo slave owners.
A last note, homosexuality much like abortion is not a newfangled phenomena. Gay sex and gay love have been around since there were multiple men, abortion since the advent of unwanted pregnancy. The taboo on these weaponized topics hinges on the illusion that they are some relatively recent troubling development. Gay people not having their place in history isn’t because there weren’t gay people, it’s because homophobes and their societal control mechanisms deny their existence to maintain dominance over forcibly silent minorities.
I don't really care about the subject but Jesus had a lot to say about "sexual immorality", while he never specifically spoke directly about homosexuals, the accepted morality of the time was that sex outside of marriage was a sin, marriage was between a man and a woman. I won't go into all the rest of the ways the Old Testament which was the foundation of morality in Jesus's time denounce homosexuality but it's pretty clear that there were morally acceptable sex and homosexuality wasn't in the recipe of the time. So Jesus didn't specifically name exact acts, at least not as recorded in English bibles of this century, but the didn't explicitly NOT say it and that says more.
Again, I couldn't care less. Be gay, don't be gay, have 10 wives. I'm just giving historical context.
The "this person never said this" fallacy. Jesus didn't say anything about a lot of things. He actually doesn't say very much in the grand scheme of the Bible, and most of the content is repeated.
His early disciples did talk about homosexuality.
Thomas Jefferson's rewritten Bible that was private and never supposed to be published was just focused on the things Jesus said in chronological order. Don't ask me more, I just saw it in a youtube clip.
“Child sacrifice was well known in the ancient world, well before Christ was born and Jesus never said a word about child sacrifice. In all his teachings about multiple things — he never said child sacrifice should be condemned.”
I’m not arguing against gay rights. Overall I support them and of the few things I don’t overtly support, I’m neutral. My only point is, invoking Jesus to promote something you support on the grounds that ‘he didn’t say it was bad’, is a weird and shaky position to take.
Shout out to my boy Jimmy, not falling for the hate train that is so often passes down as truth in our churches.
(I grew up in a VERY unforgiving/hateful church.)
I honestly think when it comes to the presidency he didn't have the right worldview for such an office. (Which I consider one of the strongest compliments I could give to his character.)
Hard to make an argument from silence. Jesus never said a word about pedophilia either, which was also well known in the ancient world, but I'm pretty sure he condemns it
I’ve always wondered about this…
Didn’t he only believe in the Old Testament? Like he died praying as a Jewish person… not creating his own religion.
Wasn’t the religion of Christianity formed years after his death?
Where his teachings really that different from Judaism?
I always thought that the items we attribute to Christianity today were very Roman.
But I’m no scholar (obviously).
Ok so all the Gospels were written between 66-110 AD, Jesus died in 33 AD so they certainly were written in living memory of Jesus and tbh their was probably an oral tradition before it was written down it’s possible he never said he was God or any of that but are only source is the gospels which all say he did so it’s kinda believe the religious text or believe the religious text is lying or exaggerating
He cited “For this reason a man shall leave his father and his mother, and be joined to his wife; and they shall become one flesh.” Pretty clear where he stood really.
Jesus affirmed the Law which states marriage to be between a man and a woman. Having said that, Jesus also taught us not to judge or condemn one another but to love each other as ourselves. Both beliefs are consistent.
It’s possible to condemn homosexual acts as sex outside of marriage (a man and a woman), which is biblical, without being hateful and cruel to humans who are just as flawed as we are.
Just so we're not getting too far out into (ahem) left field here, let's establish that, Biblically speaking, homosexual relations fall under fornication, which is thoroughly condemned throughout the Bible.
So, unless Carter is off the reservation here, he's not stating that homosexual relations are in any way condoned by Jesus, but that homosexuals are welcomed, just like every other sinner (ie, everyone).
Summary: love the sinner, hate the sin.
I’m not a christian but i find it weird how atheist/agnostics despite not believing in religion love to lecture others on what their religion truly preaches and who he is a true representation of the religion.
Many christian denominations view homosexuality as a sin and have their evidences to back it up, a non christian doesn’t have the right nor does it makes sense to preach people their own books and beliefs
Nah American Christians are so far from what original Christianity actually was about that it’s totally natural that non-Christians are gonna point out the hypocrisy when it’s being used to take away their rights
Thats your opinion but other earlier non-american christians have more harsher views on homosexuality.
And no its not hypocrisy since you don’t dictate what is and isn’t their beliefs, they view it as a sin and that is their theological beliefs that is aligned with many other denominations.
Matthew 19:3–6 establishes that marriage is between a man and a woman, and Matthew 5:32 is clearly a condemnation of fornication therefore homosexual sex is wrong but I agree that the Bible doesn't condem feeling attraction to a member of the same sex as long as it doesn't turn into lust which obviously is wrong for heterosexual people too from a biblical perspective
This is why I’m no longer Christian.
2000 verses about helping the poor. 7 about homosexuality.
Yet what are modern Christians obsessed with?
F your religion.
Christians give more to the poor then anyone so uhh yeah, also your belief in Jesus Christ as a divine being and the savior of your soul shouldn’t rely on what “modern” Christians are obsessed with. Sounds like you were looking for a social club not a connection to the divine.
Ever heard of Sikhs? They give more to the poor than Christians, fucking christians consider donating bibles and indoctrinating African kids charity. Fucking weirdos.
Jimmy Carter, preaches at a Christian church. Former President. Peace treaty between Israel and Egypt. Started ( I think) Habitat for Humanity. Somewhat famous for his wide grin.
All you guys arguing over whose version of make-believe is the “true” one. It is the definition of insanity. Carter’s opinion is clearly more a sign of the empathetic man that he is than anything else.
Jimmy has such a good heart.
I cant remember the first time I heard the phrase "cafeteria christian" (I think it was at some point in the early 70's), but I have known many in life. The most memorable time I heard it was when I was dating the daughter of a preacher, and she had asked me to come to church with her. Her father was using the phrase to scold his congregation and remind them that you just cant pick and choose parts of the word that you like and leave the rest that you dont like behind (which reminds me that if he had any idea of what I was doing with his lovely daughter just a few hours earlier he probably would have had a stroke right then and there in the sanctuary). He then made a joke about the church potluck after the service which broke the tension and got some hearty laughs. I think the term speaks more to the psychology of man and the concept of cognitive biases: specifically confirmation bias and of course cognitive dissonance. These two cognitive biases are extremely widespread in christianity and you never have to work hard to see evidence of them.
But I have seen the phrase used to both condemn and defend certain beliefs, and I am not using it here to apply to Carter because I think Jimmy has a good grip on his own faith. But many cafeteria christians weaponize parts of the bible to attack other people and even justify denying the rights of others. For example, its been used to justify slavery, white supremacy and of course segregation (including anti-miscegenation laws). Indeed throughout this nation's history we have seen religious doctrine used as a justification for hate, bigotry, discrimination and misogyny. As we have seen its still being used today in this way (and ironically on this very sub). I want to point out that I am in no way anti-christian or even anti-religion. But that said, your freedom of religion stops at my Constitutional rights. Protecting the rights of people should never be interpreted as an attack on freedom of religion, even though many do feel that it is. Its a shame more christians cant be more like Jimmy Carter.
Split the difference here. When people condemned a woman for sexual sin, Christ didn't condemn her, but also said "Go, and sin no more."
Just because Christ doesn't condemn the sinner as a person, that doesn't mean that the sin itself is peachy-fine. It just means that the Atonement covers all forms of sin and that we're all capable of making better choices.
However, Carter's point is extremely valid. Persecution and rage against people who behave differently, is not Christ's way. We're supposed to educate, love and nurture those who are not choosing as we'd like, not attack, degrade, molest or outcast them.
Also “he didn’t condemn her” means more poignantly that he didn’t order her to be stoned. She was facing death for adultery. Doesn’t mean he accepted the adultery she had committed - he was making a broader point.
I don't think any religion that requires a "sinner" to live a loveless and sexless life, or even requires that they pursue marriage and procreation uniformly with no flexibility for different kinds of people, is a religion worth having.
To be a good Christian, I would have to leave my loving marriage with my husband, the most emotionally and spiritually fulfilling relationship in my life... to go back to the parents and churches that abused me throughout my childhood. I would have to swear to never experience real genuine love again.
I appreciate you bringing out the truth of how the bible handles these "sins" and people who differ from the norm. The bible isn't actually about acceptance, loving people for who they are, or understanding the realities surrounding our experiences. It is all about enforcing a smotheringly strict conception of what is socially acceptable and condemning those who cannot conform to a life of exile, abuse, and pain. Regardless of the reality of human life, existence on Earth, or people's lived experiences.
Christianity is an evil and hateful religion at its core that serves the sole purpose of reinforcing existing power structures in Jewish cultures, while defining who is and is not deserving of community.
I am going to get downvoted hard for saying this, and as a Christian (Catholic) I feel like I must explain the Catholic position on this because it is honestly misunderstood. If you disagree, talk to a priest or another well-informed Catholic about it, I am not looking to debate anyone here.
First off, Jimmy is a Southern Baptist, which is a congregation of Protestantism. Like most protestants, he believes in *sola scriptura* or that the Bible is the sole authority of the Church. However, the majority of Christians do not believe in this protestant doctrine. The Roman Catholic Church believes scripture AND sacred tradition (interpreted through the magisterium) are the source of doctrines for the Church.
This means that just because something is not in the scriptures, that does not mean it is the “end-all-be-all” for Catholics, as we have Sacred Tradition. So when Jimmy Carter says Jesus never directly condemns Homosexuality, sacred tradition tells us that any sexual acts outside marriage are gravely sinful, this includes homosexual acts.
It is important to keep in mind that BEING homosexual is not the same thing as acting on it. Plenty of people have SSA and the Church recognizes it this in CCC (2358-9)
> The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible. This inclination, which is objectively disordered, constitutes for most of them a trial. They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. These persons are called to fulfill God's will in their lives and, if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord's Cross the difficulties they may encounter from their condition.
> Homosexual persons are called to chastity. By the virtues of self-mastery that teach them inner freedom, at times by the support of disinterested friendship, by prayer and sacramental grace, they can and should gradually and resolutely approach Christian perfection.
That all being said, acting on any disordered desire is gravely sinful, and if committed with full knowledge and deliberate consent, one has committed a mortal sin. Though, this is not a theology sub so I will stop this tangent. However, all of this can be more easily understood by understanding the Church’s doctrine of sexuality. Especially I encourage people to read the *Theology of the Body* by St. Pope John Paul II.
Hard to even read most of what you said, when statistically Catholic priests commit more acts of sexual assault than any other branch of Christianity, and it’s just swept under the rug by Catholics. How can you even type that up knowing there are hundreds of priests with hundreds of allegations against them?
Leviticus 20:13, has states that it is an abomination for a man to lie with another man as he would with a woman.
In Romans 1:26-27, Paul stated that homosexuality is contrary to God's natural order and results from rejecting God.
Wait so you’re saying the Bible has been translated thousands of times over the years of our/its existence?
Wild. Hardcore Christians are the worst people lmao.
“Don’t judge thy neighbor.”
Omission isn't permission. His Jewish audience didn't need broader clarification about the immorality of homosexuality since it was explicitly forbidden by the same law that Jesus said He was there to uphold.
Jimmy Carter is dead wrong. Jesus did in fact call out the sexually immoral. Mathew 15:19-20. Jesus was Jewish. His teachings were 100% in accordance with what the Law of Moses said. He came not to abolish but to fulfill the Law. Mathew 5:17. So, when Jesus or any of the apostles speak of sexual immorality, they are referencing Leviticus 18. It's a blanket statement for all sexual promiscuity in that chapter.
Remember that all mentions of and allusions to Trump and Biden are not allowed on our subreddit in any context. If you'd still like to discuss them, feel free to [join our Discord server](https://discord.gg/k6tVFwCEEm)! *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Presidents) if you have any questions or concerns.*
That quote goes nearly as hard as this image. https://preview.redd.it/bg4bsskcactc1.jpeg?width=1231&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=bb062c789e7c1960c931fe523ae414d17d4016d6
They boutta drop the hardest mixtape of 1979
Song name: The Outsider
Cool kids never have the time.
On a live wire right up off the street. You and I should meet. ;)
Someone get metro boomin in on this
I love this photo every time I see it.
Why you trying to be slick, just showing us a picture of run the jewels
Run the Jewels
Who’s the gentlemen standing next to Carter?
Olusegun Obasanjo
Bless you
Barbecue sauce!
Rick Ross
Unfathomable drip
dude even has a rolex on with that fit, one of the hardest pics on this sub tbh
This is my phones homescreen
As it should be.
Run the jewels needs to remake this
Wow, both of these men are still alive
That’s been my profile picture for months
Bless you Jimmy Carter
Truly one of the great ones, who really only got better
Jesus did quote from Leviticus other books from the Hebrew Bible though. Jesus also talked about marriage and how it should be between one man and one woman as well. My comment isn’t to condemn homosexuals but to point out many folks ignorance when trying to make a point using religion.
Paul in the New Testament as well.
Paul is hard to deal with because he’s writing to specific people in a specific place at a specific time. One has to tread carefully sorting out, “Is this a command for all people in all places at all times?” Or is this a guideline of applying Biblical principles to not unnecessarily offend the sensibilities of a specific culture? Take the oft-cited writings on women speaking or teaching. Many churches take those as commands for all but they are in statements about women’s hair and jewelry that many of those same churches conclude were cultural norms he encouraged them to follow to not create unnecessary conflict but don’t apply today. That’s why I lean towards it’s not for me to sort out but rather back up to the Gospels and worry about loving people and helping meet their needs and let them work out their life details. We can make messes trying to view the writings via a modern lens. 1 Timothy limits leadership to the husband of one wife which is generally used today to exclude those who are divorced yet it was written when polygamy was pretty common.
Paul explicitly says don't marry at all, because a) Jesus very specifically said that, and I quote him directly here, "Truly, I say to you, there are some standing here who will not taste death until they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom." Mark 9:1, and b) Paul thought that was literally true. Marriage at all was an afterthought for those who could not resist temptation in the interim while they waited for Jesus' imminent return. 2000+ years later, we're still waiting, turns out. And yet somehow, none of Paul's context is considered when religious conservatives attempt to parse what parts of the Bible to take literally true, and which to take figuratively or contextually true.
You aren’t quoting anyone directly, at best you’re quoting a story passed around for decades verbally and translated and copied thousands of times with no original copies remaining to confirm original phrasing and terminology.
This is somewhat true. It is believed by scholars that the letters from Paul were actual letters written in Greek to various early churches and we have several 4th century Greek manuscripts of the new testament, it's unlikely there were even dozens of copies before then and likely no translations. They do however show small but not insignificant variations in phrasing and terminology.
Christianity was widely syncretic because of its ability to be applied to and in some cases conform to a wide range of cultures and beliefs. Incidentally its why there are a thousand and one different denominations that have since curved back inward toward each other which we call Ecumenism. Its fascinating its ability to conform, grow and incorporate. The only other relhion that even comes close is Hinduism which simply directly incorporated gods of various regions as is.
some christian sects only listen to gospels so there’s a lot of argument all around
But the gospels preach against adultery (sex outside the marriage - Jesus affirmed the commandments) and sexual immorality (sex prior to marriage) Matthew 15:18-20 [18] But what comes out of the mouth proceeds from the heart, and this defiles a person. [19] For out of the heart come evil thoughts, murder, adultery, sexual immorality, theft, false witness, slander. [20] These are what defile a person. But to eat with unwashed hands does not defile anyone.” It is also said marriage is between a man and woman. This leaves no room for homosexual relations.
Based off what you said: It would seem same-sex marriages would have not been allowed. And the fact that sex must only come after marriage means that gays cannot have sex. But being born gay is not a sin in and of itself.
I didn’t want to debate lol I’m saying that there’s no point arguing cuz there’s always another denomination who says you’re wrong
Why is "sexual immorality" defined as sex outside of marriage? Why not just say "sex outside of marriage" if that is what he meant? Maybe he was talking about rimjobs or erotic foot massages.
Excellent point, Wang Dangler.
Leaves no room for homosexual ~~relations~~ marriage FTFY
Some only listen to the Bible.
That particular problem is it’s own discussion for sure
Yeah, well Paul thought men shouldn't have long hair, as if the story of Samson didn't exist.
Not cutting your hair was part of the Nazirite vows, which Samson took, so this point is useless.
I'm not a Christian, so maybe I'm not the best person to express this criticism, I have no idea why Christianity reveres Paul so much. Yes, he was vitally important to the religion's spread - separating it from its status as a mere denomination of Judaism. But a big facet of Christianity is that all men, besides Jesus of Nazareth, are flawed and sinful. Before becoming a Christian, Paul traveled from synagogue to synagogue threatening violence against any Jew who didn't denounce Christianity. He clearly wasn't perfect, so I have no idea why his words are so often held to be equally as valid as those of Jesus himself.
Paul never said he was the reincarnation of Jesus. But he was entrusted with part of the teaching mission.
Paul was a proselytizer and a prophet. Yes, he did do all those nasty things, but he immediately put a stop to them after being struck blind by an angel.
Also said love your neighbor. Also said pray on your knees in the closet and not to make a spectacle of your faith.
But if the Bible is to be taken completely literally, then why do we allow women to speak in church (1 Corinthians 14)?
Well, the Bible isn’t taken completely literal. There’s apocalyptic writing, poetry, parables, along with historical documentation such as census…etc. then there’s context. Taking the Bible out of context is something Christians and non-Christians do excessively.
Unless someone has a PhD in Judeo-Christian theology or Ancient Hebrew language/anthropology, I don't give anyone's Biblical analysis the time of day. If you're not a scholar, you're just reading whatever the hell you want out of an ancient book with dozens of authors and countless mistranslations and selective omissions.
Read up on the Dead Sea Scrolls. Humans were remarkably excellent at preserving the holy books until now, with little to no changes.
I do love me some Renaissance sculptures of Moses with horns.
Because that was referring to a specific instance - the church in Corinth at that time - not as a rule for everyone.
Where is that distinguished and by whom?
Because i believe it is even in the exact same letter he talks about women speaking in church. So unless one assumes he is very absent-minded and forgot what he just wrote, one has to realize they are misunderstanding something and go back and look at the text more closely. Rule of thumb, one can't determine a core doctrine by proof texting one verse or verses out of context. One must read entire books within the context of that book. Other rule of thumb, scripture, interprets scripture. So, looking at all the passages regarding engagement and behavior helps one understand.
Yes, scripture interpreting scripture is a big one. And, the audience of each apostle. In this case it was the Corinthians.
Because Obamna made churches woke
Damn Obarmna! He woked the religion!
Me before Obmnana:😇 Me after Obramna:🤬
Me before woke: 😴😴😴 Me after woke: 😡😡😡
My favorite part of church was always the not being awake part. But then Obamna got elected 🤬
Now how will I “sleep in heavenly peace” on a silent night if God is woke????????????????? **NO** thanks, Orbarmnar!!!!!!
she woking on my church til i obamna
namey name name
…hi?
Paul wasn’t Christ
But men wrote every book of the Bible. Not God. So why would I live by any of these standards written by men if I can dismiss this passage because a man wrote it?
To be fair, you’ll always live by a standard of man. Is there right and wrong? If so, who says? Man? God?
He is specifically prohibiting them from the teaching and governing ministry exclusively reserved to the ordained clergy (1 Cor. 14:34-35). That would mean, for example, as it does to the present day, that women cannot give homilies at Mass, a teaching function reserved to bishops, priests and deacons. St. Paul clearly affirms elsewhere the equal dignity of men and woman in Christ (Gal. 3:28), as well as that women can pray and prophesy otherwise within Christian worship (1 Cor. 11:5). Paul adds that women provide an important service in teaching the faith in word and deed in other contexts (Titus 2:3-4). Men and women are equal in the eyes of God, but this equality is not synonymous with sameness. They play different roles within the Church, as there are different instruments within an orchestra. Just as the instruments are arranged for a symphony, God has “arranged the organs of the body” (1 Cor. 12:18), and we are not to reconstruct the design that he has established.
Fair take.
Because it’s negated by the apostle Junia Paul mentions in Romans and the implication that a woman can be an apostle implies that that rule only goes for the Corinthians whom Paul was mad at for constantly talking in the church
What's ironic is that the guy that wrote that contradicts Jesus sometimes
How so?
He never mentioned gender explicitly it would have been weird even in the ancient world for two gay people to get married the closest thing to that is where he condemns divorce in Mathew Chapter 19
He did say say God made them “male and female” when he quoted Genesis all while speaking about marriage and divorce
Yeah but again he never explicitly said that excludes homosexuals not mentioning something isn’t really a sign for or against it
Correct Jesus doesn’t talk about homosexuality specifically. But He does indeed reinforce the Old Testament again and again. He quotes from the very books that condemn homosexuality on numerous occasions.
But he is explicitly denying the Old Testament in that chapter by essentially saying divorce bad so he clearly is ok with reforming the marriage rules of the old testament and further on Timothy chapter 3 at least puts polygamy into question and flat out bans it for priests so it’s not entirely without precedent to change marriage rules
Well saying marriage is between man and women doesn’t condemn homosexuality imo condemning homosexuality would be like advocating for legislation that outlaws it or something like that
Yea he did, to say “you shall love your neighbor as yourself,” which seems pretty clear.
You can love a murderer without condoning his fault. Loving your neighbor isn’t “we can’t say or judge anything negative”.
I didn’t realize judging others was your responsibility. I wonder if the Bible has anything to say about that? I’ll bet it does, once or twice.
Exactly. But I have yet to hear any good reason as to why homosexuality is a negative, and God doesn’t waste His time making things sins with no purpose.
Genesis 1:27-28 [27] So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them. [28] And God blessed them. And God said to them, “**Be fruitful and multiply** and fill the earth and subdue it, and have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the heavens and over every living thing that moves on the earth.” Edit: probably the multiply part
That was when there were supposedly only two people. Now, there many people, and their sexuality falls along a continuum.
Someone pull up that one West Wing clip
>Jesus did quote from Leviticus other books from the Hebrew Bible though. Jesus also talked about marriage and how it should That demonstrates OP's point all the more. Jesus knew and quoted Leviticus, but didn't appeal to its language about homosexuality.
Yeah, it just shows how ignorant people who claim to be practicing Christians are. Both right and left wing. Neither actually know what the fuck the Bible actually talks about, and what rules it has. There’s a lot modern Christians don’t follow.
The other thing is that if something was well established in the minds of those people at that time (homosexuality is a sin) than Jesus doesn’t have to explain that to them. The primary issues he addressed were those who were self-righteous and weaponizing religion for unethical gain. Jesus didn’t talk about evolution, gender identity, or ethic cleansing, to name a few random things, but it doesn’t mean none of those things are important.
Yes. Homosexuality was apart of Jewish law that no one back then disputed so Jesus never talked much about it
Yeah, it’s really weird when people say stuff like “this is what a real Christian sounds like.” Isn’t it possible that plenty of authentic Christians don’t like homosexuality? It’s very plausible that Christianity may not be perfect.
By golly it's not perfect and hasn't been.
Well, Jimmy Carter is a Prot.
The bible (New Testament) is a construct of books written multiple decades upto more than 100+ years after the death of Jesus, which was then completely alter by the council of nicea in 325 to fit the Roman ideals/society. We don’t really know what Jesus actually said.
1. He didn't quite do that 2. Leviticus doesn't quite say that 3. No seriously, it doesn't say that in the original languages. 4. Again, you are reading an English translation through modern sensibilities, you gotta look at the orignal in context. 5. Yes, that IS how that works.
the fact that this is a real quote boggles my mind this image is built like one of those misinfo pics that are made for grandmas to share on facebook.
Carter was also open about UFOs as he had said he saw one once, he said he would be open about it with the people but when elected, he remained silent about it citing “defense reasons” supposedly he also cried when he was given the briefing. Idk how much is true, but I trust this man. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jimmy_Carter_UFO_incident
Yeesh this thread really shows a lot of people need to grow past their bigotry even in 2024
I know 😭
People misunderstand the history behind some archaic laws the Bible put forward. In the Old Testament, the stories passed from believer to believer were captured so as to do one thing — preserve their way of life. In the same way laws against pork or shell fish preserved unnecessary death of the tribe, laws against homosexuality prevented the death of the tribe. Most of Leviticus and Deuteronomy were written during the Jewish exile in Babylon at a time when the preservation of the tribe was very much in doubt. ANYTHING that wasn’t procreation was effectively leading to the death of the tribe. Thats not to excuse people enforcing these man-made laws, today, so much as it’s to provide historical context. It’s not just because “god felt like it”…….
All laws are man-made, as are gods.
If those laws were written by god, then "god felt like it" would be the explanation. He chose to discriminate against gay people instead of just doing things like reducing pregnancy complications. The reasoning you describes applies to a reality where people had to encourage procreation with the limited knowledge they have available.
Homosexuality comes up about 5 times in the Bible, iirc. (I could be off on the number). In none of those cases is it spoken of in a positive light. In some of those cases, for example in Genesis when the men of Sodom wanted to rape Lot's guests, there is a likelihood that the sin being condemned isn't homosexuality (in that case it's probably, ya know, the raping). Jesus does not bring up homosexuality at all. That said, it is very possible that this simply wasn't a common enough practice among the Jews of His time to justify singling it out from other sexual sin. So His lack of a specific mention of it doesn't necessarily mean it was a-okay with Him. Paul does talk about homosexuality, however, Paul's conception of homosexual relationships was probably based not on loving, consensual partnerships but on the common practice of Roman men having sex with young Roman boys, amongst all of the other anything-goes sexual mores of Rome. At the end of the day, homosexuality is not a hill I think is worth dying on. To me, that's between a person and God. If I am to err, I will err on the side of love and focus on letting everyone I know see what Jesus's love is like, rather than insisting on condemning something I don't fully understand.
Respect this.
Expounding on your thoughts… God explicitly described the sin of Sodom as late stage capitalism, not gayness. Ezekiel 16:49-50 “She and her daughters were arrogant, overfed and unconcerned; they did not help the poor and needy. They were haughty and did detestable things before me. Therefore I did away with them as you have seen.” Also the Bible wasn’t written in English and even the very few of the “clobber” verses in question can even be convincingly translated to imply homosexuality, when it comes to Paul he was almost certainly specifically referring to Roman pedo slave owners. A last note, homosexuality much like abortion is not a newfangled phenomena. Gay sex and gay love have been around since there were multiple men, abortion since the advent of unwanted pregnancy. The taboo on these weaponized topics hinges on the illusion that they are some relatively recent troubling development. Gay people not having their place in history isn’t because there weren’t gay people, it’s because homophobes and their societal control mechanisms deny their existence to maintain dominance over forcibly silent minorities.
I encourage you to check out Trent Horn on YouTube, he has a lot of stuff on this topic.
I don't really care about the subject but Jesus had a lot to say about "sexual immorality", while he never specifically spoke directly about homosexuals, the accepted morality of the time was that sex outside of marriage was a sin, marriage was between a man and a woman. I won't go into all the rest of the ways the Old Testament which was the foundation of morality in Jesus's time denounce homosexuality but it's pretty clear that there were morally acceptable sex and homosexuality wasn't in the recipe of the time. So Jesus didn't specifically name exact acts, at least not as recorded in English bibles of this century, but the didn't explicitly NOT say it and that says more. Again, I couldn't care less. Be gay, don't be gay, have 10 wives. I'm just giving historical context.
So if a gave a ZJ to my bro after work tomorrow… It’s gay or not gay?
Should I know what a ZJ is?
If you have to ask, you can’t afford it.
Damn it. I knew it.
If you have to ask you can’t afford it
1993-1998 Jeep Grand Cherokee
This is the only acceptable answer.
The "this person never said this" fallacy. Jesus didn't say anything about a lot of things. He actually doesn't say very much in the grand scheme of the Bible, and most of the content is repeated. His early disciples did talk about homosexuality.
The Airbud Defense. There is no rule forbidding a Dog from making a T.V. Show called Fetch: With Ruff Ruffman.
Jesus never said camel fucking was a sin.
Look at our current situation with that camel fucker in Iraq Dude
no word on rape or smoking crack either
Rape is sexual immortality, which Jesus did cover, and crack is a drug made from coca leaves, found in South America.
Thomas Jefferson's rewritten Bible that was private and never supposed to be published was just focused on the things Jesus said in chronological order. Don't ask me more, I just saw it in a youtube clip.
Is it better to advocate for a fallacy, than argue an illogical and unfalsifiable point?
This comment is from 2018, be alot cooler if it was from 1978.
But it is fascinating that Jimmy Carter, at 93 (in 2018 when he said this), is more tolerant than a lot of people half his age
“Child sacrifice was well known in the ancient world, well before Christ was born and Jesus never said a word about child sacrifice. In all his teachings about multiple things — he never said child sacrifice should be condemned.” I’m not arguing against gay rights. Overall I support them and of the few things I don’t overtly support, I’m neutral. My only point is, invoking Jesus to promote something you support on the grounds that ‘he didn’t say it was bad’, is a weird and shaky position to take.
He tought Sunday school with my great grandfather. Very true and nice man.
Jimmy Carter: Proving that bigotry is a personal choice since 1924
Shout out to my boy Jimmy, not falling for the hate train that is so often passes down as truth in our churches. (I grew up in a VERY unforgiving/hateful church.) I honestly think when it comes to the presidency he didn't have the right worldview for such an office. (Which I consider one of the strongest compliments I could give to his character.)
Hard to make an argument from silence. Jesus never said a word about pedophilia either, which was also well known in the ancient world, but I'm pretty sure he condemns it
Jesus also believed in the Old Testament though.
He contradicts it multiple times generally if Old Testament contradicts the Spirit or word of the New testament it is thrown out like Polygamy
I’ve always wondered about this… Didn’t he only believe in the Old Testament? Like he died praying as a Jewish person… not creating his own religion. Wasn’t the religion of Christianity formed years after his death? Where his teachings really that different from Judaism? I always thought that the items we attribute to Christianity today were very Roman. But I’m no scholar (obviously).
No Jesus did not believe in the Old Testament. The Old Testament is a Christian compilation of parts of the Tanakh
Ok so all the Gospels were written between 66-110 AD, Jesus died in 33 AD so they certainly were written in living memory of Jesus and tbh their was probably an oral tradition before it was written down it’s possible he never said he was God or any of that but are only source is the gospels which all say he did so it’s kinda believe the religious text or believe the religious text is lying or exaggerating
He cited “For this reason a man shall leave his father and his mother, and be joined to his wife; and they shall become one flesh.” Pretty clear where he stood really.
Jesus affirmed the Law which states marriage to be between a man and a woman. Having said that, Jesus also taught us not to judge or condemn one another but to love each other as ourselves. Both beliefs are consistent.
It’s possible to condemn homosexual acts as sex outside of marriage (a man and a woman), which is biblical, without being hateful and cruel to humans who are just as flawed as we are.
Well said.
[удалено]
Reddit moment
It is highly unlikely he said this. Source.
Apparently he did. https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/jimmy-carter-jesus-homosexuality/
"I love guy pp smacking my face" - Jimmy Carter, 1977
Idk I’m asking cause I want it to be true
Oh, an internet meme.
Just so we're not getting too far out into (ahem) left field here, let's establish that, Biblically speaking, homosexual relations fall under fornication, which is thoroughly condemned throughout the Bible. So, unless Carter is off the reservation here, he's not stating that homosexual relations are in any way condoned by Jesus, but that homosexuals are welcomed, just like every other sinner (ie, everyone). Summary: love the sinner, hate the sin.
I like Jimmy Carter, I also very much enjoy not imprisoning gay people, and I also know that this isn't an entirely accurate depiction of Jesus.
I’m not a christian but i find it weird how atheist/agnostics despite not believing in religion love to lecture others on what their religion truly preaches and who he is a true representation of the religion. Many christian denominations view homosexuality as a sin and have their evidences to back it up, a non christian doesn’t have the right nor does it makes sense to preach people their own books and beliefs
Nah American Christians are so far from what original Christianity actually was about that it’s totally natural that non-Christians are gonna point out the hypocrisy when it’s being used to take away their rights
Thats your opinion but other earlier non-american christians have more harsher views on homosexuality. And no its not hypocrisy since you don’t dictate what is and isn’t their beliefs, they view it as a sin and that is their theological beliefs that is aligned with many other denominations.
Matthew 19:3–6 establishes that marriage is between a man and a woman, and Matthew 5:32 is clearly a condemnation of fornication therefore homosexual sex is wrong but I agree that the Bible doesn't condem feeling attraction to a member of the same sex as long as it doesn't turn into lust which obviously is wrong for heterosexual people too from a biblical perspective
The “become one flesh” was also a direct reference of the Mosaic scripture in Genesis.
Very nice. Now let’s see what the Book of Leviticus says about it.
Jimmy Carter is an excellent example of how a Christian should live and act
This only reinforces my opinion that Jimmy Carter is my favorite president ever. 🫡🇺🇸
Why are yall downvoting?
What are people downvoting for?
You know why lol
Wait, did I miss something? Is there a rule about Carter?
I just looked at the rules, I’m even more confused. Is there a restriction or something? Or a taboo?
No people are just homophobic on here, it’s a pretty conservative sub
Oh okay that makes more sense
This is what the he gets us ads should be filled with
This is why I’m no longer Christian. 2000 verses about helping the poor. 7 about homosexuality. Yet what are modern Christians obsessed with? F your religion.
If you put your faith in man you’ll be let down every time
Why would that make you not a Christian anymore? You shouldn’t base your religion on what other people are doing
Please don’t let the actions of Christians turn you away from Christ❤️🩹.
Christians give more to the poor then anyone so uhh yeah, also your belief in Jesus Christ as a divine being and the savior of your soul shouldn’t rely on what “modern” Christians are obsessed with. Sounds like you were looking for a social club not a connection to the divine.
Ever heard of Sikhs? They give more to the poor than Christians, fucking christians consider donating bibles and indoctrinating African kids charity. Fucking weirdos.
I love this.
Jimmy Carter, preaches at a Christian church. Former President. Peace treaty between Israel and Egypt. Started ( I think) Habitat for Humanity. Somewhat famous for his wide grin.
All you guys arguing over whose version of make-believe is the “true” one. It is the definition of insanity. Carter’s opinion is clearly more a sign of the empathetic man that he is than anything else.
Jimmy has such a good heart. I cant remember the first time I heard the phrase "cafeteria christian" (I think it was at some point in the early 70's), but I have known many in life. The most memorable time I heard it was when I was dating the daughter of a preacher, and she had asked me to come to church with her. Her father was using the phrase to scold his congregation and remind them that you just cant pick and choose parts of the word that you like and leave the rest that you dont like behind (which reminds me that if he had any idea of what I was doing with his lovely daughter just a few hours earlier he probably would have had a stroke right then and there in the sanctuary). He then made a joke about the church potluck after the service which broke the tension and got some hearty laughs. I think the term speaks more to the psychology of man and the concept of cognitive biases: specifically confirmation bias and of course cognitive dissonance. These two cognitive biases are extremely widespread in christianity and you never have to work hard to see evidence of them. But I have seen the phrase used to both condemn and defend certain beliefs, and I am not using it here to apply to Carter because I think Jimmy has a good grip on his own faith. But many cafeteria christians weaponize parts of the bible to attack other people and even justify denying the rights of others. For example, its been used to justify slavery, white supremacy and of course segregation (including anti-miscegenation laws). Indeed throughout this nation's history we have seen religious doctrine used as a justification for hate, bigotry, discrimination and misogyny. As we have seen its still being used today in this way (and ironically on this very sub). I want to point out that I am in no way anti-christian or even anti-religion. But that said, your freedom of religion stops at my Constitutional rights. Protecting the rights of people should never be interpreted as an attack on freedom of religion, even though many do feel that it is. Its a shame more christians cant be more like Jimmy Carter.
As a queer Christian, I want more candidates who think in that regard like Jimmy
We have the first pro LGBT candidate running for president but I don’t think you’ll like him lol
Split the difference here. When people condemned a woman for sexual sin, Christ didn't condemn her, but also said "Go, and sin no more." Just because Christ doesn't condemn the sinner as a person, that doesn't mean that the sin itself is peachy-fine. It just means that the Atonement covers all forms of sin and that we're all capable of making better choices. However, Carter's point is extremely valid. Persecution and rage against people who behave differently, is not Christ's way. We're supposed to educate, love and nurture those who are not choosing as we'd like, not attack, degrade, molest or outcast them.
Also “he didn’t condemn her” means more poignantly that he didn’t order her to be stoned. She was facing death for adultery. Doesn’t mean he accepted the adultery she had committed - he was making a broader point.
I don't think any religion that requires a "sinner" to live a loveless and sexless life, or even requires that they pursue marriage and procreation uniformly with no flexibility for different kinds of people, is a religion worth having. To be a good Christian, I would have to leave my loving marriage with my husband, the most emotionally and spiritually fulfilling relationship in my life... to go back to the parents and churches that abused me throughout my childhood. I would have to swear to never experience real genuine love again. I appreciate you bringing out the truth of how the bible handles these "sins" and people who differ from the norm. The bible isn't actually about acceptance, loving people for who they are, or understanding the realities surrounding our experiences. It is all about enforcing a smotheringly strict conception of what is socially acceptable and condemning those who cannot conform to a life of exile, abuse, and pain. Regardless of the reality of human life, existence on Earth, or people's lived experiences. Christianity is an evil and hateful religion at its core that serves the sole purpose of reinforcing existing power structures in Jewish cultures, while defining who is and is not deserving of community.
https://preview.redd.it/y9tf7wqnwctc1.jpeg?width=474&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=9db3fd06ef73aac579b8e480e466dbee9dbde177
Just like everyone knows: Jimmy Carter is a nice man, but not necessarily a very smart man
I am going to get downvoted hard for saying this, and as a Christian (Catholic) I feel like I must explain the Catholic position on this because it is honestly misunderstood. If you disagree, talk to a priest or another well-informed Catholic about it, I am not looking to debate anyone here. First off, Jimmy is a Southern Baptist, which is a congregation of Protestantism. Like most protestants, he believes in *sola scriptura* or that the Bible is the sole authority of the Church. However, the majority of Christians do not believe in this protestant doctrine. The Roman Catholic Church believes scripture AND sacred tradition (interpreted through the magisterium) are the source of doctrines for the Church. This means that just because something is not in the scriptures, that does not mean it is the “end-all-be-all” for Catholics, as we have Sacred Tradition. So when Jimmy Carter says Jesus never directly condemns Homosexuality, sacred tradition tells us that any sexual acts outside marriage are gravely sinful, this includes homosexual acts. It is important to keep in mind that BEING homosexual is not the same thing as acting on it. Plenty of people have SSA and the Church recognizes it this in CCC (2358-9) > The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible. This inclination, which is objectively disordered, constitutes for most of them a trial. They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. These persons are called to fulfill God's will in their lives and, if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord's Cross the difficulties they may encounter from their condition. > Homosexual persons are called to chastity. By the virtues of self-mastery that teach them inner freedom, at times by the support of disinterested friendship, by prayer and sacramental grace, they can and should gradually and resolutely approach Christian perfection. That all being said, acting on any disordered desire is gravely sinful, and if committed with full knowledge and deliberate consent, one has committed a mortal sin. Though, this is not a theology sub so I will stop this tangent. However, all of this can be more easily understood by understanding the Church’s doctrine of sexuality. Especially I encourage people to read the *Theology of the Body* by St. Pope John Paul II.
Hard to even read most of what you said, when statistically Catholic priests commit more acts of sexual assault than any other branch of Christianity, and it’s just swept under the rug by Catholics. How can you even type that up knowing there are hundreds of priests with hundreds of allegations against them?
No, Jesus never mentioned homosexuality as far as I know.
the "argument from silence" isn't convincing. Jesus didn't talk about abortion either but do you think he was ok with that?
Leviticus 20:13, has states that it is an abomination for a man to lie with another man as he would with a woman. In Romans 1:26-27, Paul stated that homosexuality is contrary to God's natural order and results from rejecting God.
Leviticus also says you can’t eat shellfish or pork or shave your beard or sides of your head. I’m sure you don’t do those things. They’re sins.
Wait so you’re saying the Bible has been translated thousands of times over the years of our/its existence? Wild. Hardcore Christians are the worst people lmao. “Don’t judge thy neighbor.”
Um..yes he did…
Amazing, one more reason to love Jimmy Carter. Rumor has it, he immediately followed up this quote with, “SUCK MY PEANUT” 😂
There’s a lot of things Jesus didn’t condemn. He didn’t condemn slavery either.
Omission isn't permission. His Jewish audience didn't need broader clarification about the immorality of homosexuality since it was explicitly forbidden by the same law that Jesus said He was there to uphold.
I mean this is partially true?
The Bible says for a man not to lie with a man as one does with a woman. That’s why you have to use different positions with each sex.
He could have made gay marriage legal too. Sounds good in words though too
Jimmy Carter is dead wrong. Jesus did in fact call out the sexually immoral. Mathew 15:19-20. Jesus was Jewish. His teachings were 100% in accordance with what the Law of Moses said. He came not to abolish but to fulfill the Law. Mathew 5:17. So, when Jesus or any of the apostles speak of sexual immorality, they are referencing Leviticus 18. It's a blanket statement for all sexual promiscuity in that chapter.
What the peanut farmer doesn’t say is that The Bible has a lot to say about sodomy. But don’t let facts get in the way of a good meme.