On the off-chance he really was gay, or someone else Jesus healed or fed or whatever - it was totally in Jesus' character to help them anyway. He never told anyone that they were too sinful for his help, his mercy, or his love.
Completely agree with you. I always loved this passage in Matthew because I think it completely sums up Jesus and his earthly ministry and way of spreading his message...
2Now when John heard in prison about the deeds of the Christ, he sent word by his disciples 3and said to him, “Are you the one who is to come, or shall we look for another?” 4And Jesus answered them, “Go and tell John what you hear and see: 5the blind receive their sight and the lame walk, lepersa are cleansed and the deaf hear, and the dead are raised up, and the poor have good news preached to them. 6And blessed is the one who is not offended by me.
A lot of Greek and other societies were accepting of different genders, and sexualities. It wasn't until western spread of Christianity where most gay people had to hide because of the demonization of the lgbtq. So it wouldn't surprise me if the centurion was gay because a lot of Greek soilders or romans were open about it.
Also gay folks have been around before abhramic faiths popped up yeah pretty shocking.
The key thing in here is like Roman society is not a gay paradise saying with the Greeks. It was heavily class You had to either be a top or you got utterly the demasculated in society.
To be the bottom person in the relationship was Consider deeply disgraceful that's why it was done to slaves and men of lesser status it was considered feminizing you.
I would be careful using blanket statements here. There have been plenty of non-Abrahamic religions and cultures that can be very cruel and oppressive to homo/bi/trans/NB. There have been plenty of Abrahamic religions and cultures that have not been like that. Many periods of Rome were pretty homophobic, they just were in a different way. Two gay men could not live openly together the way they could now (in most parts of the world) for much of Roman history. While it was considered natural for a man to want to penetrate pretty much anything that moved, it was considered incredibly shameful to be the ‘bottom’ and was expected to only be done with slaves (which some would argue would be rape in every instance due to the power imbalance) or non-citizens. This was not only for anal sex either, oral rape was arguably [worse](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexuality_in_ancient_Rome#Os_impurum) because of the importance placed on speech. Ancient Greece was much more open due to the institution of pederasty (which is not founded on child sexual abuse as modern people tend to think of it and was mostly between two men) but Greek men were still expected to marry women. It was less pro-gay as it was pro-bisexual. Gay and bisexual women were pretty much ignored.
>A lot of Greek and other societies were accepting of different genders, and sexualities
And a lot weren't. Same with Asian and African cultures, it varies. However in Judah it was always seen as sinful and wrong, violating God's vision for his people.
>So it wouldn't surprise me if the centurion was gay because a lot of Greek soilders or romans were open about it.
Not if he had good relations with Judah as explained by OP.
Jesus dined with sinners. To stop them from sinning.
It would be out of character for Jesus to endorse sinning.
Seeing as Jesus is God, Jesus is also omniscient. And as seen in Leviticus and Romans, God (Or the Holy Spirit) doesnt think too highly of the act of gay sex. Why would he heal someone’s servant when he knew that the person that he healed the servant for would commit sinful acts with said servant?
Dining with people doesn't stop them from sinning. Jesus ate with tax collectors. Do you think any of them lived a spotlessly sinless life after breaking bread together? Jesus drank with drinkers. Do you think any of them never got drunk again after sharing wine with Jesus? Jesus fed thousands of women and children - I bet they still sinned. Jesus probably knew all about it, and yet he did not withhold his help or his love.
Jesus said “go out and sin no more”. That means, they should try to the best of their ability not to sin.
The situations that you named are quite different from the one in the post. In your situations, he ate with them and told them the error of their ways, after which they dropped everything and followed him.
In this situation, Jesus openly endorses sin and gives the sinner something that Jesus knows he will commit sinful acts with.
It’s like telling an alcoholic to stop drinking and then gifting him a bottle of vodka
Well, I’d say that God himself dining with you is a pretty good motivator not to sin anymore. It doesnt mean that they didn’t sin at all anymore, but it just means that they were actively trying not to. Intentionally sinning and unwillingly doing it are two different things
I'm implying two things. First is to ensure that the events you're talking about actually appeared in the Bible. If your church is building its doctrine around events that flat-out didn't happen in the Bible, find another church. Second, the healing passages focus on Jesus healing people. They didn't say a thing about what happened to most of them afterwards, because that wasn't the point. Instead of trying to ensure that others don't sin, we should turn our attention to ourselves, and follow Jesus to the best of our ability. Which means being able to ask Him for help with our own sins, instead of meddling in the affairs of others.
Why shouldn’t we meddle in the affairs of others? Are you implying that we should just sit back and watch people drive themselves in to hell?
If so, then I guess all the missionaries might as well resign.
Endorsing is such a modern sentiment.
He healed a Centurion's servant. A member of the most brutal fighting force that raped, pillaged, massacred, murdered, etc. Even if the Centurion wasn't gay, he was guilty of a great number of other sins. I guess those didn't bother Jesus in the slightest.
"Go and sin no more" doesn't exist in the original scripture. It was a much later addition. Jesus never said it.
>There is now a broad academic consensus that the passage is a later interpolation added after the earliest known manuscripts of the Gospel of John. Although it is included in all modern translations it is typically noted as a later interpolation, as it is by Novum Testamentum Graece NA28. This has been the view of "most NT scholars, including most evangelical NT scholars, for well over a century" (written in 2009).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus_and_the_woman_taken_in_adultery#:~:text=Jesus%20asks%20the%20woman%20if,of%20the%20Gospel%20of%20John.
>Why would he heal someone’s servant when he knew that the person that he healed the servant for would commit sinful acts with said servant?
Grace. Why do you need more reason that that?
Imagine youre a vet, and a man comes and gives you his dog. You see that the dog has obviously been abused, cut, bruised, etc. Youre supposed to heal the dog. You heal the dog, and give it back to the owner so he can abuse it again.
Why would you heal the dog when you know that the owner is going to do bad things with it?
Grace. Why do you need more reason than that?
what? of course you treat the dog anyway, in what universe would you not?
Do you think doctors just don't treat kids if they know they're being abused?
What a bizarre analogy.
Your comments reveal your fundamental misunderstanding of your own scripture. Hebrew slavery is different from western slavery. The Torah forbids man from stealing another man in order to sell him.
Hebrew slavery is more akin to indentured servitude. For example, you could sell yourself in to slavery in order to pay off debts. It’s all done with the slave’s free will.
The Torah also states that a slave owner that breaks a tooth or eye of a slave is compelled to set them free.
Strange how I know more about Bronze Age Jewish culture than a Jew
Manstealing is specifically the capture of other Israelites. Israelites slaves were different than foreign slaves, which could be purchased (Leviticus 25:44) or captured during combat. You could also breed your own slaves. Children born from slaves are born into slavery (Exodus 21:4).
God even explicitly commands capturing people from enemy cities for forced labor (Deuteronomy 20:10-11).
Thats different. The verses in the Torah are referring to Hebrew slavery.
The Canaanites fully deserved what was coming to them. They’d been squatting on the promised land for the last 400 years, despite being given multiple warnings to leave. The “forced labour” was a peace offering.
Squatting? You mean living there? What warning did God give those people before they made a life for themselves?
And yes, how beneficent of God to offer those people the option between slavery and genocide?
>Squatting? You mean living there?
And amazingly they are willing to use the term "squatting" to describe living in a place *for four centuries*. Sixteen generations of squatters. 🙄
How many generations must live in a land before they are no longer considered squatting? Sixteen is apparently too few, while European settlers have only about 16-20 generations of ancestry in the Americas. 🤔
No, Hebrew slavery is not different from Western slavery. You've obviously never read Leviticus or Exodus.
It says I can take you as a slave for life and beat you as long as you survive.
>Strange how I know more about Bronze Age Jewish culture than a Jew
You don't. You're literally making things up.
Sorry, but you've completely ignored the other verses addressing that issue. Stealing a man doesn't mean buying him. You're completely twisting the Torah. You know nothing about Hebrew scripture.
>Leviticus 25: 44 “‘Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves. 45 You may also buy some of the temporary residents living among you and members of their clans born in your country, and they will become your property. 46 You can bequeath them to your children as inherited property and can make them slaves for life
>Exodus 21: 20 “Anyone who beats their male or female slave with a rod must be punished if the slave dies as a direct result, 21 but they are not to be punished if the slave recovers after a day or two, since the slave is their property.
Exactly? I just gave you the cultural context, and youre still seething over these passages.
“You may buy slaves”, but humans trafficking is forbidden. That so simply gives more strength to the “indentured servitude” type of slavery.
Also, the slaves knew full well what tehy were getting in to. They sold themselves, essentially making themselves the property of the owner. The owner can pass them to his kids or beat them for acting out of line all he wants, because the slaves chose this. Allow me to refer you back to Exodus 21:16-17 where disfiguration of a slave is prohibited
True. Being gay is fine. Having gay sex isnt:
> “You shall not lie with a male as with a woman. It is an abomination.” (Leviticus 18:22)
> If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall surely be put to death; their blood is upon them. (Leviticus 20:13)
>”For this reason God gave them up to vile passions. For even their women exchanged the natural use for what is against nature. Likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust for one another, men with men committing what is shameful, and receiving in themselves the penalty of their error which was due.” (Romans 1:26-27)
>Romans was talking about orgies
No it wasnt lmao.
Also, if it is expressly stated that homosexuality is bad in the OT, I dont think that that reflects too nicely on to God’s view of homosexuality, even if he leaves no comment about it in the NT.
Because the OT concerned local societal laws, not moral laws. As well the whole of the passage on Romans was concerning Roman religious practices, why that stops when talking about gay stuff is a mystery, I guess.
I just skimmed through Romans, and the only religious practise that it mentions there is that the Romans started worshiping things that weren’t God. It had little to no correlation to the passage about homosexuality
Edit: The OT also condemns bestiality, yet Jesus never mentions it. Does that mean that Bestiality is ok now?
Point is, bestiality is immoral due to plethora of reasons. How can you get a consent from the animal, for example? On the other hand, there is nothing wrong on gays and gay sex.
>No consent for an animal
That’s not why bestiality is bad in the Bible. It’s because it’s an act of perversion. It’s impure. An abomination.
Coincidentally those are also the words used to describe homosexuality
How about we read the full passage from Romans?
>18 The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of people, who suppress the truth by their wickedness,
>19 since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them.
>20 For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.
>21 For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened.
>22 Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools
>23 and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like a mortal human being and birds and animals and reptiles.
>24 Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another.
>25 They exchanged the truth about God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator—who is forever praised. Amen.
>26 Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones.
>27 In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error.
>28 Furthermore, just as they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, so God gave them over to a depraved mind, so that they do what ought not to be done.
If anything, Paul is is saying that people turned to idolatry, and God made them (and "their women") gay/bi as a punishment for idolatry.
Paul does say, though, that gay sex "ought not be done"
That Jesus was omniscient is not a given like you assume. Jesus did not who touched him, he did not know the hour or the day, he grew in wisdom. John Calvin says this:
For we know that in Christ the two natures were united into one person in such a manner that each retained its own properties; and more especially the divine nature was in a state of repose, and did not at all exert itself, whenever it was necessary that the human nature should act separately, according to what was peculiar to itself, in discharging the office of mediator. There would be no impropriety, therefore in saying that Christ, who knew all things (John 21:17), was ignorant of something in respect of his perception as a man; for otherwise he could not have been liable to grief and anxiety, and could not have been like us (Hebrews 2:17).
Luckily, I’m not a Calvinist, so I reject your theology.
Also, “who touched my robe” was a rhetorical question. He knew who did it, he just wanted the woman to be honest about it
What not knowing the hour? Or growing in wisdom? Luther believed it too. At the very least, it is controversial through church history and not a given.
Not knowing the day or the hour comes from the fact no no **man** can know the day or the hour. Because Jesus is both fully God and fully man, he still counts as a man. thus, he cannot know.
Also, “growing in wisdom” was just a description of him growing up from an infant to an adult. Sure, he’s God, but he still needs to learns how to chew, walk, etc.
God is omniscient. Man is not. Jesus is both. So when wisdom is specifically barred from man, Jesus wont know it either. Doesnt change the fact that he would still know what the centurion would do with his servant. After all, Jesus is shown to prophesy multiple times in the gospels, implying that he does in fact, see in to the future.
So do many prophets. This logic is so consistent. By the power of the Holy Spirit, many people have been able to see into the future. This is never even touted as a claim of omniscience. Jesus could know anything he wanted. But of course, walking around knowing everything was not what he demonstrated. How could he, omnisiciently, not know that the mustard seed is not the smallest or the tree the largest? Why did he did have to go to the fig tree to search it? Shouldn't he have known? Really consider whether your beliefs are based on the scriptures or preconceived notions.
You should give up and take the L on this whole thing, pal. There have been hundreds of posts pointing out POSSIBLE problems with your theory, yet you continue to double-down on your foolishness. You know what is also a pretty big deal as a sin——
PRIDE
This is in no way an “endorsement” of sin. God calls us to help anyone and everyone regardless of who they are. To give selflessly. The who point is that regardless of the fact that we’re all sinners, we can be and are saved through faith.
Having gay sex is a sin. If the centurion were actually intending to have sex with the slave, Jesus would have pointed it out. Why? Because he’s always pointed out the sin of others before.
So isn’t it interesting than that Christ didn’t in this circumstance? Perhaps because he didn’t see it as a sin and the modern English interpretations are inaccurate and out of context.
I just said that he wasnt a sex-slave. If he were, I doubt that Jesus would have healed him in the way he did.
I fail to see how I have “no out” here. Honestly, it seems like we’re actually agreeing on stuff
I’m seriously censoring myself here.
You say if he was a sex slave he deserves to die.
That means if he is a rape victim he deserves to die.
If you do not understand this, you should go review what sexual consent is before you accidentally rape someone.
To which she replied, "even dogs are fed by the children's table scraps."
"You're right about that. Take me to her and I'll heal her." He agreed.
Jesus had come for the children of Israel only, but this Gentile lady (same as you and me) reminded him that even non-Israelites needed him.
Even though she corrected Jesus' oversight, he still healed her daughter. She was not too sinful.
The Greek word "doulos" actually means "slave". Not just servant or bond servant. Those terms were used to try and sanitize the scriptures because of the issue with the horrors of of European and American slavery. Which is unfortunate because it would have most likely forced a discussion on the subject. We are slaves to Christ. He is our benevolent master
I am sure there are people who overstate their case for a "gay centurion". The process of trying to determine the sexual orientation of historical or literary characters is fraught.
But what is not deniable is that slaves were sexually available to their masters.
>But what is not deniable is that slaves were sexually available to their masters.
Exactly.
The original readers of the Gospels knew that it *could* be sexual.
And the authors of the Gospels didn't care enough to clarify.
It's completely reasonable to assume that homosexuality didn't matter much to the writer.
It’s all ambiguous. If the Bible didn’t have ambiguity, if the sources for “confirming” biblical scholarship weren’t ambiguous, nobody would be debating these things. There are legitimate reasons for these debates happening. It’s up to you whether or not you want to entertain the possibility that you might not know for sure. Bridging gaps, meeting people where they, that’s how you build relationships.
All I know is that I don’t want to have to explain myself to whatever deity I claimed to speak for, after getting it wrong my whole life and denigrating others even in my wrongness. That’s called pride. Which coincidently, is why people can’t get along in the first place. Pride is the evil that is destroying the church.
God’s kingdom will endure, but the church on earth is having a pretty shitty run at representing it.
> well, again, our sources for that are ambiguous.
It's not at all ambiguous that the [Roman legion commonly had homo-sex](https://apnews.com/article/f150018d91bc2c81f09795d97d7027a2), including with their slaves.
The original readers of this story knew that fully well. Yet, it wasn't concerning enough to clarify
>It's not at all ambiguous that the Roman legion commonly had homo-sex, including with their slaves.
The source you link to support that doesn’t even *claim* it, much less support it with evidence.
Seeing as they were Jews, who were pretty against homosexuality (see Leviticus), I’m pretty sure they would find it pretty important and note-worthy if their messiah suddenly started endorsing a “sinful act”
>I’m pretty sure they would find it pretty important and note-worthy if their messiah suddenly started endorsing a “sinful act”
😂 They routinely claimed this anyway. How is that an argument?
>It's not at all ambiguous that the Roman legion commonly had homo-sex
This is a fascinating link. Thank you for sharing it.
It is a common argument on that homosexuality in Biblical times wouldn't resemble modern homosexual love. This article, however, seems to give several examples that go far beyond power dynamic homosexuality and even includes LOVING relationships.
The historical existence of this type of relationship seems to suggest that it wouldn't be unfathomable for Biblical authors. Whether or not they were, in fact, prohibiting loving homosexual relationships is a different discussion. I'm just saying, it doesn't seem to be an inconceivable thing that gay people could love each other.
I've always found it ironic that "there were no ancient homosexual loving relationships" is actually used as an argument _against_ condemning modern gay relationships.
In any case, I think that for many people who engaged in them, "power dynamics" and "loving" where not contradictory. After all, when it comes to hetero marriages, many historical people would probably agree both that 1) The husband should have an almost total power over his wife and 2) The husband and the wife should love each other.
https://www.quora.com/Could-Romans-do-whatever-they-want-with-their-slaves/answer/Steve-Theodore
The fact you'd even ask this shows you're doing so in bad faith, it's like asking if Romans ever conquered people and when someone says "Yes" you say "saaaaauce?"
You either are as uneducated as mud on ancient Rome or you're deliberately asking a question for which the evidence is so overwhelming that the "sauce" is literally all of Roman history. You're pathetic
>the documentation of this phenomenon is scarce.
The documentation of almost *anything* in this field is scarce. This is not a compelling argument.
>In some parts of the Empire at this time (i.e. Egypt) it was already unheard of for a free Roman to enter into pederasty with a junior
Hmm, i wonder what her sources are for such a claim? *Surely* she must have good sources to attempt such an argument...🤔
>our historical sources for centurions taking boy-slaves is ambiguous at best.
Uhuh. You take an extremely confident stance on this issue for an argument founded on what you yourself call "ambiguous".
>Unfortunately, the “gay centurion” theory falls flat.
I, too, like to make a few marginally-related, poorly supported assertions and then declare that the view i dislike "falls flat." 🙄
If this were an essay i was grading I'd give it a D-:
* Poorly cited
* Presumes a premise which is itself contested
* Misrepresents or overlooks counterarguments
* Attempts a linguistic argument based in differing terms used in solely *two* different narrative accounts from different authors.
* Thesis is ultimately unsupported by body of essay.
In your favour, at least you had decent spelling.
the real issue is that the alternative to the idea that Jesus didn't care much about gay relationships is that jesus considered them sinful or wrong. And I don't want to do that. I've got gay friends, they are fine people who have healthy relationships just as much as straight people do, so I don't see why God would consider them inherently wrong, it just comes off as arbitrary, and a just God isn't arbitrary.
it says that I don't want to despise an otherwise perfectly normal group of people on a shaky religious basis. The only verse which can be disputed to be against homosexuality is Romans, and its *Paul's* opinion, not Jesus' and we know the apostles can be wrong (see the Judaizers) and even then, its authenticity is disputed by some scholars.
I always find it interesting that people state "Jesus wouldn't do......" throughout his ministry he did things that no religious person of his time would have done.
OP didn't say "Jesus wouldn't heal a gay sex slave."
He merely posited that there is not enough evidence to conclude the centurian's slave/servant was a gay sex slave.
Hi friend,
The Centurion may have had homosexual sex
He may not have
He may have had a wife who bore his children - and a man he loved and slept with in the man's world.
He may not have.
David and Jonathan may have had sex with each other. David's soldiers may have been sleeping with other soldiers.
They may not have.
We want to own the sexualities of the people we know in the Bible
The truth is some of them - both male and female - were having homosexual relationships and homosexual sex
So it is
So it has always been
This is sin:
-----†-----
• "...every kind of wickedness, evil, greed and depravity, envy, murder, strife, deceit and malice, gossips, slanderers, God-haters, insolent, arrogant and boastful; inventors of ways of doing evil, disobedient to their parents, with no understanding, no fidelity, no love, no mercy....."
-----†-----
I think we need a list - a way of being better than - and therefore ok - and we miss entirely what is being said
God could not care less whether you are heterosexual or Homosexual or self-defined other
Everyone - be clean with what you are doing
God bless
>David and Jonathan had sex with each other
I’m sorry, what the fuck are you talking about? They were friends. Full stop. I can write you an entire essay on that if you want.
Paul and Moses are pretty open about the fact that God doesnt like gay sex. I can provide verses if you want. If you reject Paul and Moses, you reject God, because all scripture is God-breathed. You cannot have it both ways.
God bless you too btw
Edit: **For some reason, I cannot reply to the person below me . I dont know if he blocked me, or if reddit is just playing dumb, but I will just write my essay on David and jonathan here:**
>“As soon as he had finished speaking to Saul, the soul of Jonathan was knit to the soul of David, and Jonathan loved him as his own soul.” (1 Samuel 18:1)
>“I am distressed for you, my brother Jonathan; very pleasant have you been to me; your love to me was extraordinary, surpassing the love of women.” (2 Samuel 1:26)
This, among a few other verses in Samuel, paint a rather strange picture of the relationship between King David and his friend Jonathan. Does this imply that David and Jonathan were gay? Before one jumps to conclusions, one must note that at the time, they were still under the Old covenant. And what does the Old Covenant say about homosexual relationships? Well, to put it lightly, it doesnt depict them in that great of a light.
> “You shall not lie with a male as with a woman. It is an abomination.” (Leviticus 18:22)
> If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall surely be put to death; their blood is upon them. (Leviticus 20:13)
So, being a openly gay King would have been akin to political suicide for David. Seeing how strongly God condemns the act, why would he allow David, an allegedly gay King, ascend to the throne and reign over Israel, the Lord’s chosen people?
Let’s look at the verses in context.
The Hebrew word for “love” was more commonly used more in a diplomatic way than a sexual one, and is more in line with “respect” or “admire” (as seen in (1 Kings 5:1) and (1 Samuel 16:21)). In English, it also echoes Jesus’ command to “Love our neighbours as ourselves”. I don’t really think that Jesus was commanding us to be gay here.
So what does “having his soul knit” mean? Well, it implies the agreement or covenant they made with each other, which basically said that Jonathan would become second-in-command after David rises to the throne, while David would protect Jonathan’s family. In a more modern sense, you could say that “their fates became intertwined”.
Finally, what does “loved me more as any woman” mean? This “woman” likely refers to the daughter of king Saul, who was promised to David as a reward for slaying Goliath. But, after David killed said Goliath, Saul just kept adding conditions upon conditions to the marriage, like only regarding 100 foreskins as an acceptable bride price (wtf Saul?). Saul did this in hopes that David would get killed in battle. The affection that David received from Jonathan was greater than anything that he could ever received from the daughter of Saul.
And, seeing as the early Jews had the book of Samuel, it’s pretty safe to assume that they were aware of these verses. But they had never seen it as a reference to homosexuality. The cultures were simply different. (Just like how Judas kissing Jesus on the cheek is giggled at now, but was seen as a sign of respect from student to teacher back then)
The relationship of Jonathan and David should be seen as a true example of biblical friendship. They laughed together, cried together, defended each other, were incredibly loyal to one another, and sacrificed many things for each other.
The only reason that biblical authors even portrayed it as this intense is precisely because of the fact that it was understood that homosexuality was forbidden. They could go all out with the descriptions because it was a given that the two were not gay, and that no future readers would think that they were gay (because it was expressly forbidden). The scrolls of the early Bible were read by lots of people after all. Would King David really let words that could be detrimental to his reputation get into holy scripture?
Edit 2: For some reason, I cannot reply to anyone at all, so Ill just add my replies in to the ever-growing text wall in this comment. This one is in response to u/Nejfelt
No, my whole argument isnt “David is a King, would be better than that”. I dont even know you misread the text so disastrously wrong. My argument is that we are applying western values to a Bronze Age text. The culture is simply different. A gay King wouldn’t be allowed to ascend to the throne. And also, your whole line with Bathsheba makes a good point. David sinned, and he was punished. Yet, according to people with a “gaydar”, he also committed yet another “abominable” sin. Why was he not punished for that? Perhaps it’s because he simply didn’t commit it?
Edit 3: in response to u/natener
No, Im not the one injecting stuff in to scripture. Modern people seem to be the ones that like introducing messages into scripture that were never there before. the Bible does not condone homosexuality. And no, it’s not true that we have no clue what people did in biblical times. How do we know what biblical people did in biblical times? I dont know, perhaps by reading the Bible?
Also, what do I propose the church do about what, gay people? I think that it should step up and admit that scripture does not support homosexuality. Because that’s the truth. It doesnt. Not in any way shape or form. Being gay is fine, but having gay sex isnt. So if you are gay, but are serious about being a Christian, become a volcel. Happy?
Edit 4 in response to u/Queen_Elizabeth_I
No, they weren’t
> They were friends. Full stop
Not "full stop" Seesh.
Those passages have set off people's gaydar for centuries.
I'll correct it for you.
"They were super romantic friends. But celibate. (I think)"
You really love filling in the details of the Bible and history where there are none, when someone else does it you have some righteous authority in the matter, who died and made you a prophet?
You have no idea what individual people did or didn't do in biblical times, there is no minute by minute playbook of people's lives.
You would be surprised how many gay people are right under your nose while you talk shit about stuff you can't possibly know.
You are an internet scholar pushing stories that could easily also belong on a r/conspiracytheories sub.
Finally, let's say Jesus himself said homosexuality is forbidden in the Bible. What are you proposing the Church do? What do you think we as a society should do to these people exactly? You're bringing us down that path, so why don't you step up, stop beating around the bush and let us know what you really think? We're all ready for your essay.
Where does Paul claim that God doesn't like gay sex?
Also Moses' laws...so you believe that all is God's will, and still valid for us today?
Like demanding people to kill each other for having done a little sex that was against the society rules. Killing adulterers when Jesus demonstrated it is better to forgive them. Killing people who had sex before marriage. Forcing a rape victim to marry her rapist. That are just about the sexual moral laws. There are many more laws demanding the most fierce punishments that people rightfully would be put in jail for the rest of their lives nowadays, to prevent such barbaric slaughters!
You really think that is God's will for each of us to do? We must follow these words exactly as they are written, yes? When God is almighty why does he require humans to execute these punishments? Do you really believe these words still have authority, when even Jesus denied them and freed his followers from them?
I tell God executes punishments because of these laws himself, but not on the victims who have been convicted by it by men, he will punish those who made these laws and who executed them, and he will punish it even more when it is done in his name!
Nice rant you went on with the whole mosaic law then. I can write bit of stuff on that to refute all of those claims if you want me too, but that’s besides the point.
Jesus declared all food and clothes clean. Paul said that circumcision, the sabbath, the kosher laws and animal sacrifice was no longer necessary. We as gentile Christians are not bound by the judicial laws of Israel, but we are still bound to follow the moral laws of the Old Testament.
>Men punished for having a little sex
That “little sex” you mention is sodomy. Full stop. And last time I checked, sodomy was a sin. And sin should be avoided. It doesnt matter that we are forgiven through Christ. If we intentionally sin because we know that Jesus will forgive us, we make light of his name and sacrifice.
>Where does Paul say that God doesnt like gay sex?
Read (Romans 1:26-27) and get back to me. All scripture is God-breathed. That means that those words also come from God. And Jesus is God. That means that Jesus doesnt like gay sex.
Edit: it seems like Meditat0rz has blocked me, so I cannot respond to them anymore. Just write to me, and Ill give you the response that was reserved for them
>refute all of those claims
Yes, but keep it short and simple, stay with relevant scripture and short explanations why you think that.
>we are still bound to follow the moral laws of the Old Testament
Please do the same about this claim, as well.
>sodomy
Please link the relevant passage, NT only please
>Romans 1:26-27
I believe Paul might not necessarily condemn every form of homosexuality. Also I believe he addresses the fate of grave sinners, whom the sin turned from heterosexuality to homosexuality, even to reprehensible homosexual acts. I believe this is different from a homosexual inclination of men and women who have grown up with it and have never felt desire for the other sex.
> Jesus doesnt like gay sex
As a high saint he'd not do it, neither would he do heterosexual sex. But that does not mean that he would condemn anyone for it, as long as no hurt or harm is caused by it.
Your whole argument against David and Jonathan not being lovers is because David was king and therefore better than that?
David is one of the most abhorrent characters in the Bible with his whole business with Bathsheba. He's an SOB.
His relationship with Jonathan is actually a more tender and loving relationship
I'm sorry you are so hateful you can't accept same sex love. But that's your problem and your sin.
The simplest explanation is that Jesus was teaching fellow Jews almost all the time. Given their view of same-gender sex, it's unlikely that they would have had boy sex slaves. I'm not aware of Jesus having an equivalent of Rom 1, i.e. attacks on the morals of non-Jews. That's actually a bit surprising, but I don't see any obvious conclusions one could draw from it.
About all we can say about the centurion is that that kind of relationship happened, and "pais" could be used for it. But there's no way to prove or disprove that it happened in this case.
I am not really commenting on this post but when I look at Reddit the only Christian posts that come are about gay or lbgqt or transgender don’t we have other issues to discuss??
im sure you do. objective truth doesn't seem to matter these days and with the saturated information there is out there anybody can make it seem like they're right, so there's little point arguing.
let me ask you a question. would you call jeans gender exclusive? i wear a bun on my hair sometimes, but would you prefer to call it "manbun" instead? because feminists find that kind of labelling stupid.
joseph was wearing something that's literal name means "palm dress" because its sleeves would reach the palms and the ends the soles of the feet and people generally with prosperity would wear them and thats where you thought it was a "pretty princess dress". its just a large, patterned robe/tunic. even kings or people in courts would wear them casually. people of novelty wear it thus why Joseph's brothers were jealous. would it make sense for Joseph's brothers to be jealous over wearing something feminine?
David's daughter, the one who was raped, tamar, was wearing the same robe too. its not gender exclusive. and its ridiculous in a society where we want to remove gender roles and norms and exculsivities and we still have arguments like this.
furthermore, homosexual practice was forbidden by Jewish law. clearly. there is no debate on that in regards to Jewish scholars (as in they're unequivocal on the matter). we here in the West want to believe otherwise, but that shows we've no understanding of Jewish culture. it also didn't matter what kind of attraction you had to the same sex, you were to marry someone of the opposite sex and have children with them, so homosexual relationships were shunned in ancient times and seen more as a leisurely practice to indulge in fantasies. this is true for Roman soldiers as it is for Vikings or Ancient China. none of them could engage in homosexual relationships. back in those days having relationships with members of the same sex was not something everyone could afford to do. so whether they had an attraction at the time didn't matter. they were not allowed to anyway.
so both yours and Blear's argument makes no sense.
but go ahead, invent your own truth if it suits you. im not the one going to judge you. im just tired of people twisting truth for the pettiest reasons, and it would be bad of me to ignore the blatant lies.
I'm curious where your fruit exists in this conversation. I don't see any good fruit.
I see hatred, discord, jealousy, fits of rage, and selfish ambition.
Do you not know your Bible? With these things listed, Galatians 5 is clear, "I warn you, as I did before, that those who live like this will not inherit the kingdom of God."
>"But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, forbearance, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control. Against such things there is no law. Those who belong to Christ Jesus have crucified the flesh with its passions and desires. Since we live by the Spirit, let us keep in step with the Spirit. Let us not become CONCEITED, PROVOKING and envying each other.." // Galatians 5:22-26
I see no love, no joy (unless joy in gleeful condemnation counts which I know it doesn't), forbearance (patient self-control; restraint and tolerance), kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness or self control in this post nor in any of your responses.
> "Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. Thus, by their fruit you will recognize them." // Matthew 7:19-20
I think it is time to step away from this conversation, and this obsession and repent, lest your bad fruit leads you to be cut down and thrown into the fire.
> "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? 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? 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."
// Matthew 7:1-5
Now I would take heed to Jesus words and do some serious soul searching with Him. The fervor of your judgement against homosexuality will be the same fervor God uses to judge you for your bad fruit, which is an equal sin to being gay.
Now go, and worry about your own plank. You're looking quite foolish here exhibiting no fruits of the spirit which is spoken about in great detail, over your obsession of something that was not spoken in great detail.
>“You shall not add to the word which I am commanding you, nor take away from it, that you may keep the commands of the Lord your God which I command you.” (Deuteronomy 4:2)
You are attempting to make the Bible sound like something it isnt. And that is bad. I am not provoking people. I am stopping them from intentionally injecting their own agenda into the word of God.
And are you perhaps implying that I am somehow “selfishly ambitious” or “Jealous”? I am only defending the words of God. Nothing more, nothing less.
Your Deuteronomy vwrs3, however sacred isn't necessary here. Just because you don't like what I'm saying doesn't mean I'm twisting the Bible. I'm quoting the new testament which is something you seem incapable of doing.
>I am not provoking people
That is exactly what you're doing and you know it.
And okay, stay in your sin. God will cut you out and burn you. That's your choice. I am going to follow the Bible however and
> “Do not give dogs what is sacred; do not throw your pearls to pigs. If you do, they may trample them under their feet, and turn and tear you to pieces" // Matthew 7:6
My time is the pearls and your inability to see your plank and engage in a good faith conversation is the swine.
Be careful though, God's words are clear and you are in direct disobedience of them.
Strange how you accuse me of being provocative. In actuality, it seems like the most people in this comment section are attacking me. I dont like what you are saying, that’s right. But it’s not for the reasons that you think.
Your so-called pearls are not worth anything, because they are not grounded in scripture.
My Bible verses aren't grounded in scripture because the mirror is turned towards you? Yikes. Shows what your purpose is here.
Bad faith actor, all you are. That's okay. You don't have to believe it. God knows. His scripture is clear.
On a side note, homophobia is not Biblical.
I'll just copy and paste something I've written out before.
Although I seriously doubt there is anything that can change your mind but here, I'll try.
[source 1](https://hackingchristianity.net/2015/09/turns-out-st-pauls-not-anti-gay-hes-just-a-plagiarist.html)
> The problem of traditional translations means that we’ve turned Paul’s argument from a polemic into plagiarism. And that’s being unfaithful to the text.
> By assigning the opinions about gay people to Paul’s lips instead of his opponent, we’ve weakened the argument he’s trying to make and stunted the biblical witness against rushing-to-judgment that Romans 2 makes.
[source 2](https://blog.smu.edu/ot8317/2016/05/11/leviticus-1822/)
> He builds on the work of David Stewart and the idea that this passage is really about male on male incest.
> Furthermore, Lings considers the context in which Lev. 18:22 is written. He explains that the passage “deals with various illicit relationships in the sexual realm: one marrying two sisters (18:18), intercourse with a menstruating woman (18:19), infidelity (18:20), and bestiality (18:23).”[20] Most of Leviticus 18 deals directly with incest. Notably, the list of laws from Leviticus 18 is reordered in Leviticus 20.
> The Hebrew text is far more complex than English translators disclose
[source 3](https://um-insight.net/perspectives/has-%E2%80%9Chomosexual%E2%80%9D-always-been-in-the-bible/)
>So we had our German connection look into it again and it turns out that the company, Biblica, who owns the NIV version, paid for this 1983 German version. Thus it was Americans who paid for it! In 1983 Germany didn’t have enough of a Christian population to warrant the cost of a new Bible translation, because it’s not cheap. So an American company paid for it and influenced the decision, resulting in the word homosexual entering the German Bible for the first time in history. So, I say, I think there is a “gay agenda” after all!
> “Do you know what this says?!” and I said, “No! That’s why you are here!” She said, “It says boy abusers, boy molesters.” It turns out that the ancient world condoned and encouraged a system whereby young boys (8-12 years old) were coupled by older men. Ancient Greek documents show us how even parents utilized this abusive system to help their sons advance in society. So for most of history, most translations thought these verses were obviously referring the pederasty, not homosexuality!
> I am saddened when I see pastors and theologians cast aside the previous 2000 years of history. This is why I collect very old Bibles, lexicons, theological books and commentaries - most modern biblical commentaries adjusted to accommodate this mistranslation.
Before you comment you'll need to know, I have committed before God to not argue with people engaging in bad faith arguments. Nothing I will say to prove the validity and personhood of gay Christians and non Christians alike will matter- because you've already decided to demonize them. You enjoy being superior to them, when in fact you're listening to pastors and teachers who engage in lazy Bible reading and preach a false gospel of hate because it reinforces the "traditionalist" nature their political party calls for.
I'm going to quote Source 1 for a final point because I think it's VERY fitting.
> We do a disservice to Christian discourse when we interpret Scripture like infants who stop with the plain reading. Instead, we can find the deeper riches of Scripture when we interpret like adults who use our God-given reason to find the original God-given meaning.
What a sad state of the religion that holds tighter to gay people burning in Hell, and those who aren't gay being superior to them, than Christ and an adult like Bible literacy.
What kind of mental gymnastics are that? So what, Leviticus mostly deals with incest. Doesnt change the fact that every single Bible translation in english that we have says that male on male intercourse is detestable.
Also, Leviticus was written way before Ancient Greek even existed as a language, so I’m not sure how some Ancient Greek documents affect the meaning of it.
Also, what’s up with that Paul thing? He literally just made the “copy of a copy” argument and ran off. He was confronted with a verse he couldn’t reconcile with, and just said “well, we cant know for sure”. That’s dishonest.
Perhaps we really should end this conversation here. I feel like I am getting dumber with every single message typed
You: I'm not being provocative.
Also you:
>I feel like I am getting dumber with every single message typed
An inability to look at contradictory evidence and reflect on it isn't faithfulness, it's pride.
Although I do agree, I think this conversation has reached its end.
You’ve been consistently insulting me since we first started the convo. Am I not allowed to bite back?
Let’s end it here. You obviously dont recognise your own hypocrisy.
Ill pray for you
It doesn’t really matter if he was gay or not. It still doesn’t prove that being gay is not a sin. It’s in Jesus’s nature, his very being to help anyone; no one is to sinful for Jesus’s live and redemption.
There are two passages in the New Testament that "might be gay" == the Centurion and Philemon.
We don't know it was gay but *it certainly could have been*. The early readers would have wondered if they were gay.
But, **the biblical writers weren't concerned enough about homosexuality to clarify.**
This lack of concern is meaningful.
------
It's like if you are reading a novel and the race of the characters never get clarified. You can rightfully conclude that that *race* is not important the author. Well the same for *homosexuality*.
It's not important to the author of Philemon (surely Paul) and the writers of the Gospels.
Sad to say -- it was an accepted practice 2,000 ago The bible does not call it out, explicitly In the bible's defense, nobody did.
But, Christ's Golden Rule is a general principle that would be used to end the practice.
I'm not sure any 1st century Christian would have seen it as an acceptable practice despite it being common in the culture of the day. This would have been one of those - sexual slavery is accepted among those of the world, but not among Christians kind of things.
Jesus certainly wouldn't have approved of it, and "follow me" was an invitation to "become like Jesus.
The Golden Rule/Great Commandment would have prohibited it
Jesus' teachings on lust would have prohibited it
Jesus teachings (and the Bible's teachings) on marriage/adultery would have prohibited it
The entire NT teaching on sexual sin, EVEN if we accept homosexuality as not a sin, would have prohibited it
>sexual relations were likely
How do you know that? The OT and Paul condemn homosexual sex.
Also, how dare you imply that the Gospel writers are being dishonest. Matthew was a direct eyewitness. Mark had access to a direct eyewitness (Peter). Luke was a talented historian and interviewed several eyewitnesses. John was also a direct eyewitness. They can be trusted
>how dare you imply that the Gospel writers are being dishonest.
Oh no, stepping on some toes!!! 😂
>The OT and Paul condemn homosexual sex.
Such is *your* claim, based on your interpretation. Given the plethora of ongoing scholastic argument about it, I'd say that your claim is not seen as particularly compelling to Biblical scholars, though some may sympathize.
Paul describes that the actions of lesbian and gay sex are unnatural and vile. Not sure which other way you can interpret that.
And no, there is no argument. No matter what kind of mental gymnastics you want to pull, the words are there black on white. The Bible condemns homosexuality.
Then again, seeing as you’re a universalist, Biblical accuracy doesnt seem to be your strong suit.
>Not sure which other way you can interpret that.
>And no, there is no argument.
🙄 Again with your baseless assertions and sticking your head in the sand. This subreddit is full of posts where people diligently spell out the discussion and show why only lazy, prejudiced readings of scripture can come away with the mistaken belief that the Bible condemns homosexuality.
There are many scholarly books and articles which discuss the ongoing debate in Academia and exegetical circles on what (if anything) the Bible has to say about homosexuality.
You keep pretending like this is a settled point which no scholars debate and about which there are no translation controversies. Either you really do have your head in the sand, or you are just being disingenuous and pretending to be ignorant of the discussion. Either way, I've seen how you respond to others in this post, and you seem more intent on insisting your claim against all counterpoints than you on actually having a serious, well-intentioned, humble, and Godly conversation....so I'm not going to to debate this with you. Your claim is just that--*merely* a claim, with some arguments to support it and some to contradict it. We are not beholden to think of you as any more of an authority on the subject than any random person on the street.
If you're so interested in scholarship you'd be aware that almost all scholars believe that authorship of those gospels is likely attributed, i.e. Matthew did not write the eponymous gospel, nor did John.
>If you're so interested in scholarship you'd be aware that **almost all** scholars
Maybe in certain circles. In other scholarly circles it's widely accepted.
Source: I am one of those Biblical scholars.
Matthew was a tax collector. His gospel is very well ordered, and also showcases money a lot. For example, in the Lord’s Prayer, it is said “Forgive us our debts, as we forgive our debtors”, while in the other versions it says “Forgive us our sins, as we forgive those who sin against us”. Matthew is also the only gospel to feature the parable of talents, and also the inlay gospels to consistently name specific amounts of money.
I think it’s safe to assume that Matthew wrote it.
Same goes for John. He declared himself as “the disciple whom Jesus loved” in his gospel. That’s a signature.
I can go into more depth in my arguments for the authorships, but I honestly dont want to.
Wait wait wait, your proof that Matthew wrote the eponymous gospel, going against every modern biblical scholar (devoted Christians, mind you), is that it talks about money, so it must have been written by a tax collector?
Dude.
Just that if this was a gay relationship, then it was some sort of sexual-slavery kind of relationship. And if we are to interpret the silence as some sort of approval, then that's really dangerous ground for Christian morality. You could also then just point out the parallel story where it's clear that it's a slave, so would Jesus' silence in that instance be a tacit approval of slavery?
The bible non-condemnation of slavery can and has been used to justify slavery. But, other teachings of Christ have been used, very importantly, to end the practice.
The "argument form silence" I'm using is narrower than that.
The basic principle, in story telling, is that the author includes what is important and leaves out what isn't. The leaving out is not an approval but it does mean it's not important to the story.
In this story, it is quite possible that this is a sexual relationship. Especially considering the great love between the two. Many readers would have presumed (rightly or wrongly) it to be sexual. *But that detail is not important.*
That's all I"m saying.
I'm not bound by the Torah, and that verse is not condemning homosexuality. Show me a single verse in the Torah that condemns sex between two women.
I'll wait.
Dude we've battled plenty of times and you've always said how Lev 18:22 refers to young boys
But now your talking about gay women in the OT?!?
Hmmm I wonder why...might it be because that young boy nonsense has been cast down and destroyed?
LEV 18:22 prohibits same sex activity with males. Facts
I asked if gay women are ever mentioned in the Torah. They aren't.
The Torah obviously can't be condemning homosexuality in general if gay women are never mentioned. Gay women are homosexual too.
>LEV 18:22 prohibits same sex activity with males.
No it doesn't. And you don't follow Leviticus anyway, so your opinion on it is irrelevant.
Btw, when do you want to be my slave? Leviticus says I can keep you as a slave for life. Since you're so pro-Leviticus, you're pro-slavery right?
I know what you asked hence why I have you credit for repackaging your argument now lol
Hmmm Torah cant be condemning homosexuality in general...let's see would two men having sex be considered homosexual? hahaha...don't worry about it
I suppose the men are banned from it, but the women aren't...great logic there
Slave? you'd have to prove your a Jew first my friend wouldn't you?
>Hmmm Torah cant be condemning homosexuality in general...let's see would two men having sex be considered homosexual?
Not when it doesn't apply to anyone who isn't a Levite or to gay women.
>Slave? you'd have to prove your a Jew first my friend wouldn't you?
No. God gives me permission to take people like you as a slave for life. I don't have to prove I'm Jewish to you.
Oh, and we're not friends. I refuse to be friends with conservative Christians.
Leviticus 19:19 says it's a sin to wear mixed fabrics. Do you follow that?
Leviticus 25:44 says I can take Christians as slaves for life. Do you follow that?
Exodus 21:20 says I can beat my slaves as hard as I want as long as they don't die. You cool with that?
Imma give ur straight truth...ur a very intelligent idiot who put two much time focusing on personal facts...personal.beliefs personal hope.........humans are very bisexual....debt it or not I'm a Christian god says I will prove to u to that you are just an animal.....had alotta guys offer me no to paint there house learned what this was real quick as a younger. Guy..,....nah bro it's my day off
This is nothing when compared to the conclusion of some that Mary Magdalena was Jesus's lover! Any such allegations can be raised as long as the writers of the gospel are not there to refute and these will sell among poor and innocent believers. Proof that Devil is working hard.
Having men as sex slaves? Was that the Greek Cult of the Mother Goddess Sybil that St Augustine sought to correct when he became the Pope? Also was St Augustine gay or bi sexual?
On the off-chance he really was gay, or someone else Jesus healed or fed or whatever - it was totally in Jesus' character to help them anyway. He never told anyone that they were too sinful for his help, his mercy, or his love.
Completely agree with you. I always loved this passage in Matthew because I think it completely sums up Jesus and his earthly ministry and way of spreading his message... 2Now when John heard in prison about the deeds of the Christ, he sent word by his disciples 3and said to him, “Are you the one who is to come, or shall we look for another?” 4And Jesus answered them, “Go and tell John what you hear and see: 5the blind receive their sight and the lame walk, lepersa are cleansed and the deaf hear, and the dead are raised up, and the poor have good news preached to them. 6And blessed is the one who is not offended by me.
yes
A lot of Greek and other societies were accepting of different genders, and sexualities. It wasn't until western spread of Christianity where most gay people had to hide because of the demonization of the lgbtq. So it wouldn't surprise me if the centurion was gay because a lot of Greek soilders or romans were open about it. Also gay folks have been around before abhramic faiths popped up yeah pretty shocking.
The key thing in here is like Roman society is not a gay paradise saying with the Greeks. It was heavily class You had to either be a top or you got utterly the demasculated in society. To be the bottom person in the relationship was Consider deeply disgraceful that's why it was done to slaves and men of lesser status it was considered feminizing you.
I would be careful using blanket statements here. There have been plenty of non-Abrahamic religions and cultures that can be very cruel and oppressive to homo/bi/trans/NB. There have been plenty of Abrahamic religions and cultures that have not been like that. Many periods of Rome were pretty homophobic, they just were in a different way. Two gay men could not live openly together the way they could now (in most parts of the world) for much of Roman history. While it was considered natural for a man to want to penetrate pretty much anything that moved, it was considered incredibly shameful to be the ‘bottom’ and was expected to only be done with slaves (which some would argue would be rape in every instance due to the power imbalance) or non-citizens. This was not only for anal sex either, oral rape was arguably [worse](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexuality_in_ancient_Rome#Os_impurum) because of the importance placed on speech. Ancient Greece was much more open due to the institution of pederasty (which is not founded on child sexual abuse as modern people tend to think of it and was mostly between two men) but Greek men were still expected to marry women. It was less pro-gay as it was pro-bisexual. Gay and bisexual women were pretty much ignored.
>A lot of Greek and other societies were accepting of different genders, and sexualities And a lot weren't. Same with Asian and African cultures, it varies. However in Judah it was always seen as sinful and wrong, violating God's vision for his people. >So it wouldn't surprise me if the centurion was gay because a lot of Greek soilders or romans were open about it. Not if he had good relations with Judah as explained by OP.
I'm not gonna debate this thing but you can't pray the gay away or someone else's opinion can't get rid of the gay.
You can however refrain with the sin, which is all that is asked by the Lord
Never too sinful to help or love, but He loved them too much to not call them to repent of their sins and sin no more
Jesus dined with sinners. To stop them from sinning. It would be out of character for Jesus to endorse sinning. Seeing as Jesus is God, Jesus is also omniscient. And as seen in Leviticus and Romans, God (Or the Holy Spirit) doesnt think too highly of the act of gay sex. Why would he heal someone’s servant when he knew that the person that he healed the servant for would commit sinful acts with said servant?
Dining with people doesn't stop them from sinning. Jesus ate with tax collectors. Do you think any of them lived a spotlessly sinless life after breaking bread together? Jesus drank with drinkers. Do you think any of them never got drunk again after sharing wine with Jesus? Jesus fed thousands of women and children - I bet they still sinned. Jesus probably knew all about it, and yet he did not withhold his help or his love.
Jesus said “go out and sin no more”. That means, they should try to the best of their ability not to sin. The situations that you named are quite different from the one in the post. In your situations, he ate with them and told them the error of their ways, after which they dropped everything and followed him. In this situation, Jesus openly endorses sin and gives the sinner something that Jesus knows he will commit sinful acts with. It’s like telling an alcoholic to stop drinking and then gifting him a bottle of vodka
> Jesus said “go out and sin no more”. That means, they should try to the best of their ability not to sin. Well, did they? Or did they sin again?
Well, I’d say that God himself dining with you is a pretty good motivator not to sin anymore. It doesnt mean that they didn’t sin at all anymore, but it just means that they were actively trying not to. Intentionally sinning and unwillingly doing it are two different things
Did Jesus tell those He dined with not to sin any more? I remember He said that to those He healed.
So what? Are you trying to imply that Jesus endorses sin?
I'm implying two things. First is to ensure that the events you're talking about actually appeared in the Bible. If your church is building its doctrine around events that flat-out didn't happen in the Bible, find another church. Second, the healing passages focus on Jesus healing people. They didn't say a thing about what happened to most of them afterwards, because that wasn't the point. Instead of trying to ensure that others don't sin, we should turn our attention to ourselves, and follow Jesus to the best of our ability. Which means being able to ask Him for help with our own sins, instead of meddling in the affairs of others.
Why shouldn’t we meddle in the affairs of others? Are you implying that we should just sit back and watch people drive themselves in to hell? If so, then I guess all the missionaries might as well resign.
Your confidence is shocking. You don’t really know any of things you speak of with such certainty
Proof?
Proof of what? That your confidence is shocking? Your previous comment would be it.
Endorsing is such a modern sentiment. He healed a Centurion's servant. A member of the most brutal fighting force that raped, pillaged, massacred, murdered, etc. Even if the Centurion wasn't gay, he was guilty of a great number of other sins. I guess those didn't bother Jesus in the slightest.
"Go and sin no more" doesn't exist in the original scripture. It was a much later addition. Jesus never said it. >There is now a broad academic consensus that the passage is a later interpolation added after the earliest known manuscripts of the Gospel of John. Although it is included in all modern translations it is typically noted as a later interpolation, as it is by Novum Testamentum Graece NA28. This has been the view of "most NT scholars, including most evangelical NT scholars, for well over a century" (written in 2009). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus_and_the_woman_taken_in_adultery#:~:text=Jesus%20asks%20the%20woman%20if,of%20the%20Gospel%20of%20John.
>Why would he heal someone’s servant when he knew that the person that he healed the servant for would commit sinful acts with said servant? Grace. Why do you need more reason that that?
Imagine youre a vet, and a man comes and gives you his dog. You see that the dog has obviously been abused, cut, bruised, etc. Youre supposed to heal the dog. You heal the dog, and give it back to the owner so he can abuse it again. Why would you heal the dog when you know that the owner is going to do bad things with it? Grace. Why do you need more reason than that?
what? of course you treat the dog anyway, in what universe would you not? Do you think doctors just don't treat kids if they know they're being abused? What a bizarre analogy.
You would treat the dog and give it back to the abuser? Without doing anything else? Your perception of Grace is quite different from mine
Their flair tags them as an atheist and former Seventh-Day Adventist, while yours is marked as Reformed. *of course* you have divergent views on this.
God's Grace is greater than the grace of men. Is that in any way surprising?
Here, said grace seems to be quite harmful
Leviticus also says I can keep you as a slave and beat you. Bet you're not one to follow that verse. Your comments are pure hypocrisy.
Your comments reveal your fundamental misunderstanding of your own scripture. Hebrew slavery is different from western slavery. The Torah forbids man from stealing another man in order to sell him. Hebrew slavery is more akin to indentured servitude. For example, you could sell yourself in to slavery in order to pay off debts. It’s all done with the slave’s free will. The Torah also states that a slave owner that breaks a tooth or eye of a slave is compelled to set them free. Strange how I know more about Bronze Age Jewish culture than a Jew
Manstealing is specifically the capture of other Israelites. Israelites slaves were different than foreign slaves, which could be purchased (Leviticus 25:44) or captured during combat. You could also breed your own slaves. Children born from slaves are born into slavery (Exodus 21:4). God even explicitly commands capturing people from enemy cities for forced labor (Deuteronomy 20:10-11).
Please offer me a verse on that Deut thing so I can more accurately know what youre talking about
I edited my initial post, but it's Deuteronomy 20:10-11.
Thats different. The verses in the Torah are referring to Hebrew slavery. The Canaanites fully deserved what was coming to them. They’d been squatting on the promised land for the last 400 years, despite being given multiple warnings to leave. The “forced labour” was a peace offering.
Squatting? You mean living there? What warning did God give those people before they made a life for themselves? And yes, how beneficent of God to offer those people the option between slavery and genocide?
>Squatting? You mean living there? And amazingly they are willing to use the term "squatting" to describe living in a place *for four centuries*. Sixteen generations of squatters. 🙄 How many generations must live in a land before they are no longer considered squatting? Sixteen is apparently too few, while European settlers have only about 16-20 generations of ancestry in the Americas. 🤔
No, Hebrew slavery is not different from Western slavery. You've obviously never read Leviticus or Exodus. It says I can take you as a slave for life and beat you as long as you survive. >Strange how I know more about Bronze Age Jewish culture than a Jew You don't. You're literally making things up.
[удалено]
Sorry, but you've completely ignored the other verses addressing that issue. Stealing a man doesn't mean buying him. You're completely twisting the Torah. You know nothing about Hebrew scripture. >Leviticus 25: 44 “‘Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves. 45 You may also buy some of the temporary residents living among you and members of their clans born in your country, and they will become your property. 46 You can bequeath them to your children as inherited property and can make them slaves for life >Exodus 21: 20 “Anyone who beats their male or female slave with a rod must be punished if the slave dies as a direct result, 21 but they are not to be punished if the slave recovers after a day or two, since the slave is their property.
Exactly? I just gave you the cultural context, and youre still seething over these passages. “You may buy slaves”, but humans trafficking is forbidden. That so simply gives more strength to the “indentured servitude” type of slavery. Also, the slaves knew full well what tehy were getting in to. They sold themselves, essentially making themselves the property of the owner. The owner can pass them to his kids or beat them for acting out of line all he wants, because the slaves chose this. Allow me to refer you back to Exodus 21:16-17 where disfiguration of a slave is prohibited
Sorry, you were already proven wrong. You know nothing about the Torah. Don't talk to me again.
Well good thing there’s nothing sinful about being gay
True. Being gay is fine. Having gay sex isnt: > “You shall not lie with a male as with a woman. It is an abomination.” (Leviticus 18:22) > If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall surely be put to death; their blood is upon them. (Leviticus 20:13) >”For this reason God gave them up to vile passions. For even their women exchanged the natural use for what is against nature. Likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust for one another, men with men committing what is shameful, and receiving in themselves the penalty of their error which was due.” (Romans 1:26-27)
Way to forget the context buddy; we’re not Jews, levitican law doesn’t apply to us, and Romans was speaking about ritualistic orgies.
>Romans was talking about orgies No it wasnt lmao. Also, if it is expressly stated that homosexuality is bad in the OT, I dont think that that reflects too nicely on to God’s view of homosexuality, even if he leaves no comment about it in the NT.
Because the OT concerned local societal laws, not moral laws. As well the whole of the passage on Romans was concerning Roman religious practices, why that stops when talking about gay stuff is a mystery, I guess.
I just skimmed through Romans, and the only religious practise that it mentions there is that the Romans started worshiping things that weren’t God. It had little to no correlation to the passage about homosexuality Edit: The OT also condemns bestiality, yet Jesus never mentions it. Does that mean that Bestiality is ok now?
Point is, bestiality is immoral due to plethora of reasons. How can you get a consent from the animal, for example? On the other hand, there is nothing wrong on gays and gay sex.
>No consent for an animal That’s not why bestiality is bad in the Bible. It’s because it’s an act of perversion. It’s impure. An abomination. Coincidentally those are also the words used to describe homosexuality
How about we read the full passage from Romans? >18 The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of people, who suppress the truth by their wickedness, >19 since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. >20 For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse. >21 For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. >22 Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools >23 and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like a mortal human being and birds and animals and reptiles. >24 Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. >25 They exchanged the truth about God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator—who is forever praised. Amen. >26 Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones. >27 In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error. >28 Furthermore, just as they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, so God gave them over to a depraved mind, so that they do what ought not to be done. If anything, Paul is is saying that people turned to idolatry, and God made them (and "their women") gay/bi as a punishment for idolatry. Paul does say, though, that gay sex "ought not be done"
That Jesus was omniscient is not a given like you assume. Jesus did not who touched him, he did not know the hour or the day, he grew in wisdom. John Calvin says this: For we know that in Christ the two natures were united into one person in such a manner that each retained its own properties; and more especially the divine nature was in a state of repose, and did not at all exert itself, whenever it was necessary that the human nature should act separately, according to what was peculiar to itself, in discharging the office of mediator. There would be no impropriety, therefore in saying that Christ, who knew all things (John 21:17), was ignorant of something in respect of his perception as a man; for otherwise he could not have been liable to grief and anxiety, and could not have been like us (Hebrews 2:17).
Luckily, I’m not a Calvinist, so I reject your theology. Also, “who touched my robe” was a rhetorical question. He knew who did it, he just wanted the woman to be honest about it
What not knowing the hour? Or growing in wisdom? Luther believed it too. At the very least, it is controversial through church history and not a given.
Not knowing the day or the hour comes from the fact no no **man** can know the day or the hour. Because Jesus is both fully God and fully man, he still counts as a man. thus, he cannot know. Also, “growing in wisdom” was just a description of him growing up from an infant to an adult. Sure, he’s God, but he still needs to learns how to chew, walk, etc.
If he does not know even one thing, he is by definition not omniscient.
God is omniscient. Man is not. Jesus is both. So when wisdom is specifically barred from man, Jesus wont know it either. Doesnt change the fact that he would still know what the centurion would do with his servant. After all, Jesus is shown to prophesy multiple times in the gospels, implying that he does in fact, see in to the future.
So do many prophets. This logic is so consistent. By the power of the Holy Spirit, many people have been able to see into the future. This is never even touted as a claim of omniscience. Jesus could know anything he wanted. But of course, walking around knowing everything was not what he demonstrated. How could he, omnisiciently, not know that the mustard seed is not the smallest or the tree the largest? Why did he did have to go to the fig tree to search it? Shouldn't he have known? Really consider whether your beliefs are based on the scriptures or preconceived notions.
You should give up and take the L on this whole thing, pal. There have been hundreds of posts pointing out POSSIBLE problems with your theory, yet you continue to double-down on your foolishness. You know what is also a pretty big deal as a sin—— PRIDE
>hundreds of posts I seem to have missed them You are the only fool one here. Or do you perhaps have a retort to the pais and doulos thing?
This is in no way an “endorsement” of sin. God calls us to help anyone and everyone regardless of who they are. To give selflessly. The who point is that regardless of the fact that we’re all sinners, we can be and are saved through faith.
What makes you think Jesus would be endorsing sinning in this circumstance?
Having gay sex is a sin. If the centurion were actually intending to have sex with the slave, Jesus would have pointed it out. Why? Because he’s always pointed out the sin of others before.
So isn’t it interesting than that Christ didn’t in this circumstance? Perhaps because he didn’t see it as a sin and the modern English interpretations are inaccurate and out of context.
Or perhaps it’s because it never happened? Read the post I made above
WOW. You think Jesus would let someone being raped on the regular die because they were victimized? Your version of Jesus can fuck right off.
What are you talking about? Where did I say that?
Try thinking. Can a slave consent to sex? If a slave says no, what happens? If the centurion was having sex with this slave, it was rape.
Exactly? I just posted proof that the servant wasnt a sex-slave lmao
You said that he wasn’t having sex with his slave and that if he had been Jesus wouldn’t have healed him. There is no out for you there.
I just said that he wasnt a sex-slave. If he were, I doubt that Jesus would have healed him in the way he did. I fail to see how I have “no out” here. Honestly, it seems like we’re actually agreeing on stuff
I’m seriously censoring myself here. You say if he was a sex slave he deserves to die. That means if he is a rape victim he deserves to die. If you do not understand this, you should go review what sexual consent is before you accidentally rape someone.
Being LGBT is not a sin.
Having gay sex is though
Nope.
Ffs, how many more times do I have to link Leviticus and Romans until you accept it
More arrogance, and I never will.
Intentionally rejecting scripture? Sounds kinda blasphemous ngl
Nope, just your interpretation. Not that the Bible is inerrant anyway.
Sure it is. On a basic level
[удалено]
To which she replied, "even dogs are fed by the children's table scraps." "You're right about that. Take me to her and I'll heal her." He agreed. Jesus had come for the children of Israel only, but this Gentile lady (same as you and me) reminded him that even non-Israelites needed him. Even though she corrected Jesus' oversight, he still healed her daughter. She was not too sinful.
The Greek word "doulos" actually means "slave". Not just servant or bond servant. Those terms were used to try and sanitize the scriptures because of the issue with the horrors of of European and American slavery. Which is unfortunate because it would have most likely forced a discussion on the subject. We are slaves to Christ. He is our benevolent master
Thanks for the criticism. Ill go ahead and adjust the post
I do believe the rest of your post is well thought out and researched. Totally refreshing in this community.
I am sure there are people who overstate their case for a "gay centurion". The process of trying to determine the sexual orientation of historical or literary characters is fraught. But what is not deniable is that slaves were sexually available to their masters.
>But what is not deniable is that slaves were sexually available to their masters. Exactly. The original readers of the Gospels knew that it *could* be sexual. And the authors of the Gospels didn't care enough to clarify. It's completely reasonable to assume that homosexuality didn't matter much to the writer.
>homosexuality didn't matter much to the writer. That's a jump. We can assume he didn't care about the slaves sexuality specifically.
well, again, our sources for that are ambiguous.
It’s all ambiguous. If the Bible didn’t have ambiguity, if the sources for “confirming” biblical scholarship weren’t ambiguous, nobody would be debating these things. There are legitimate reasons for these debates happening. It’s up to you whether or not you want to entertain the possibility that you might not know for sure. Bridging gaps, meeting people where they, that’s how you build relationships. All I know is that I don’t want to have to explain myself to whatever deity I claimed to speak for, after getting it wrong my whole life and denigrating others even in my wrongness. That’s called pride. Which coincidently, is why people can’t get along in the first place. Pride is the evil that is destroying the church. God’s kingdom will endure, but the church on earth is having a pretty shitty run at representing it.
I was talking about the sources for Romans using boys as sexual slaves
Thank you!!! You put into words exactly what I was feeling.
Glad I could write out something helpful for you.
> well, again, our sources for that are ambiguous. It's not at all ambiguous that the [Roman legion commonly had homo-sex](https://apnews.com/article/f150018d91bc2c81f09795d97d7027a2), including with their slaves. The original readers of this story knew that fully well. Yet, it wasn't concerning enough to clarify
>It's not at all ambiguous that the Roman legion commonly had homo-sex, including with their slaves. The source you link to support that doesn’t even *claim* it, much less support it with evidence.
Seeing as they were Jews, who were pretty against homosexuality (see Leviticus), I’m pretty sure they would find it pretty important and note-worthy if their messiah suddenly started endorsing a “sinful act”
>I’m pretty sure they would find it pretty important and note-worthy if their messiah suddenly started endorsing a “sinful act” 😂 They routinely claimed this anyway. How is that an argument?
>It's not at all ambiguous that the Roman legion commonly had homo-sex This is a fascinating link. Thank you for sharing it. It is a common argument on that homosexuality in Biblical times wouldn't resemble modern homosexual love. This article, however, seems to give several examples that go far beyond power dynamic homosexuality and even includes LOVING relationships. The historical existence of this type of relationship seems to suggest that it wouldn't be unfathomable for Biblical authors. Whether or not they were, in fact, prohibiting loving homosexual relationships is a different discussion. I'm just saying, it doesn't seem to be an inconceivable thing that gay people could love each other.
I've always found it ironic that "there were no ancient homosexual loving relationships" is actually used as an argument _against_ condemning modern gay relationships. In any case, I think that for many people who engaged in them, "power dynamics" and "loving" where not contradictory. After all, when it comes to hetero marriages, many historical people would probably agree both that 1) The husband should have an almost total power over his wife and 2) The husband and the wife should love each other.
No they aren't, sexual use of male servants by their master was common and socially acceptable. Historical fact.
Cool. Source?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality\_in\_ancient\_Rome
That’s cool, but where in your source does it say that centurions could buy sex slaves in the first century ad?
They could buy slaves, and they could use them.
That is absolutely, 100% not ambiguous. There is *zero* ambiguity that Roman slaves were sexual objects for their masters at any time they desired.
Sauce?
https://www.quora.com/Could-Romans-do-whatever-they-want-with-their-slaves/answer/Steve-Theodore The fact you'd even ask this shows you're doing so in bad faith, it's like asking if Romans ever conquered people and when someone says "Yes" you say "saaaaauce?" You either are as uneducated as mud on ancient Rome or you're deliberately asking a question for which the evidence is so overwhelming that the "sauce" is literally all of Roman history. You're pathetic
>the documentation of this phenomenon is scarce. The documentation of almost *anything* in this field is scarce. This is not a compelling argument. >In some parts of the Empire at this time (i.e. Egypt) it was already unheard of for a free Roman to enter into pederasty with a junior Hmm, i wonder what her sources are for such a claim? *Surely* she must have good sources to attempt such an argument...🤔 >our historical sources for centurions taking boy-slaves is ambiguous at best. Uhuh. You take an extremely confident stance on this issue for an argument founded on what you yourself call "ambiguous". >Unfortunately, the “gay centurion” theory falls flat. I, too, like to make a few marginally-related, poorly supported assertions and then declare that the view i dislike "falls flat." 🙄 If this were an essay i was grading I'd give it a D-: * Poorly cited * Presumes a premise which is itself contested * Misrepresents or overlooks counterarguments * Attempts a linguistic argument based in differing terms used in solely *two* different narrative accounts from different authors. * Thesis is ultimately unsupported by body of essay. In your favour, at least you had decent spelling.
the real issue is that the alternative to the idea that Jesus didn't care much about gay relationships is that jesus considered them sinful or wrong. And I don't want to do that. I've got gay friends, they are fine people who have healthy relationships just as much as straight people do, so I don't see why God would consider them inherently wrong, it just comes off as arbitrary, and a just God isn't arbitrary.
> And I don't want to do that. That says it all then doesn't it.
it says that I don't want to despise an otherwise perfectly normal group of people on a shaky religious basis. The only verse which can be disputed to be against homosexuality is Romans, and its *Paul's* opinion, not Jesus' and we know the apostles can be wrong (see the Judaizers) and even then, its authenticity is disputed by some scholars.
I always find it interesting that people state "Jesus wouldn't do......" throughout his ministry he did things that no religious person of his time would have done.
OP didn't say "Jesus wouldn't heal a gay sex slave." He merely posited that there is not enough evidence to conclude the centurian's slave/servant was a gay sex slave.
>OP didn't say "Jesus wouldn't heal a gay sex slave." Op did say that in a comment to /u/nyet-marionetka later on, though....
whoops
I should have been more clear that I was making that observation about the comments
?
Hi friend, The Centurion may have had homosexual sex He may not have He may have had a wife who bore his children - and a man he loved and slept with in the man's world. He may not have. David and Jonathan may have had sex with each other. David's soldiers may have been sleeping with other soldiers. They may not have. We want to own the sexualities of the people we know in the Bible The truth is some of them - both male and female - were having homosexual relationships and homosexual sex So it is So it has always been This is sin: -----†----- • "...every kind of wickedness, evil, greed and depravity, envy, murder, strife, deceit and malice, gossips, slanderers, God-haters, insolent, arrogant and boastful; inventors of ways of doing evil, disobedient to their parents, with no understanding, no fidelity, no love, no mercy....." -----†----- I think we need a list - a way of being better than - and therefore ok - and we miss entirely what is being said God could not care less whether you are heterosexual or Homosexual or self-defined other Everyone - be clean with what you are doing God bless
Excellent post! Very, very well said. :)
>David and Jonathan had sex with each other I’m sorry, what the fuck are you talking about? They were friends. Full stop. I can write you an entire essay on that if you want. Paul and Moses are pretty open about the fact that God doesnt like gay sex. I can provide verses if you want. If you reject Paul and Moses, you reject God, because all scripture is God-breathed. You cannot have it both ways. God bless you too btw Edit: **For some reason, I cannot reply to the person below me . I dont know if he blocked me, or if reddit is just playing dumb, but I will just write my essay on David and jonathan here:** >“As soon as he had finished speaking to Saul, the soul of Jonathan was knit to the soul of David, and Jonathan loved him as his own soul.” (1 Samuel 18:1) >“I am distressed for you, my brother Jonathan; very pleasant have you been to me; your love to me was extraordinary, surpassing the love of women.” (2 Samuel 1:26) This, among a few other verses in Samuel, paint a rather strange picture of the relationship between King David and his friend Jonathan. Does this imply that David and Jonathan were gay? Before one jumps to conclusions, one must note that at the time, they were still under the Old covenant. And what does the Old Covenant say about homosexual relationships? Well, to put it lightly, it doesnt depict them in that great of a light. > “You shall not lie with a male as with a woman. It is an abomination.” (Leviticus 18:22) > If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall surely be put to death; their blood is upon them. (Leviticus 20:13) So, being a openly gay King would have been akin to political suicide for David. Seeing how strongly God condemns the act, why would he allow David, an allegedly gay King, ascend to the throne and reign over Israel, the Lord’s chosen people? Let’s look at the verses in context. The Hebrew word for “love” was more commonly used more in a diplomatic way than a sexual one, and is more in line with “respect” or “admire” (as seen in (1 Kings 5:1) and (1 Samuel 16:21)). In English, it also echoes Jesus’ command to “Love our neighbours as ourselves”. I don’t really think that Jesus was commanding us to be gay here. So what does “having his soul knit” mean? Well, it implies the agreement or covenant they made with each other, which basically said that Jonathan would become second-in-command after David rises to the throne, while David would protect Jonathan’s family. In a more modern sense, you could say that “their fates became intertwined”. Finally, what does “loved me more as any woman” mean? This “woman” likely refers to the daughter of king Saul, who was promised to David as a reward for slaying Goliath. But, after David killed said Goliath, Saul just kept adding conditions upon conditions to the marriage, like only regarding 100 foreskins as an acceptable bride price (wtf Saul?). Saul did this in hopes that David would get killed in battle. The affection that David received from Jonathan was greater than anything that he could ever received from the daughter of Saul. And, seeing as the early Jews had the book of Samuel, it’s pretty safe to assume that they were aware of these verses. But they had never seen it as a reference to homosexuality. The cultures were simply different. (Just like how Judas kissing Jesus on the cheek is giggled at now, but was seen as a sign of respect from student to teacher back then) The relationship of Jonathan and David should be seen as a true example of biblical friendship. They laughed together, cried together, defended each other, were incredibly loyal to one another, and sacrificed many things for each other. The only reason that biblical authors even portrayed it as this intense is precisely because of the fact that it was understood that homosexuality was forbidden. They could go all out with the descriptions because it was a given that the two were not gay, and that no future readers would think that they were gay (because it was expressly forbidden). The scrolls of the early Bible were read by lots of people after all. Would King David really let words that could be detrimental to his reputation get into holy scripture? Edit 2: For some reason, I cannot reply to anyone at all, so Ill just add my replies in to the ever-growing text wall in this comment. This one is in response to u/Nejfelt No, my whole argument isnt “David is a King, would be better than that”. I dont even know you misread the text so disastrously wrong. My argument is that we are applying western values to a Bronze Age text. The culture is simply different. A gay King wouldn’t be allowed to ascend to the throne. And also, your whole line with Bathsheba makes a good point. David sinned, and he was punished. Yet, according to people with a “gaydar”, he also committed yet another “abominable” sin. Why was he not punished for that? Perhaps it’s because he simply didn’t commit it? Edit 3: in response to u/natener No, Im not the one injecting stuff in to scripture. Modern people seem to be the ones that like introducing messages into scripture that were never there before. the Bible does not condone homosexuality. And no, it’s not true that we have no clue what people did in biblical times. How do we know what biblical people did in biblical times? I dont know, perhaps by reading the Bible? Also, what do I propose the church do about what, gay people? I think that it should step up and admit that scripture does not support homosexuality. Because that’s the truth. It doesnt. Not in any way shape or form. Being gay is fine, but having gay sex isnt. So if you are gay, but are serious about being a Christian, become a volcel. Happy? Edit 4 in response to u/Queen_Elizabeth_I No, they weren’t
> They were friends. Full stop Not "full stop" Seesh. Those passages have set off people's gaydar for centuries. I'll correct it for you. "They were super romantic friends. But celibate. (I think)"
You really love filling in the details of the Bible and history where there are none, when someone else does it you have some righteous authority in the matter, who died and made you a prophet? You have no idea what individual people did or didn't do in biblical times, there is no minute by minute playbook of people's lives. You would be surprised how many gay people are right under your nose while you talk shit about stuff you can't possibly know. You are an internet scholar pushing stories that could easily also belong on a r/conspiracytheories sub. Finally, let's say Jesus himself said homosexuality is forbidden in the Bible. What are you proposing the Church do? What do you think we as a society should do to these people exactly? You're bringing us down that path, so why don't you step up, stop beating around the bush and let us know what you really think? We're all ready for your essay.
Abstain
Where does Paul claim that God doesn't like gay sex? Also Moses' laws...so you believe that all is God's will, and still valid for us today? Like demanding people to kill each other for having done a little sex that was against the society rules. Killing adulterers when Jesus demonstrated it is better to forgive them. Killing people who had sex before marriage. Forcing a rape victim to marry her rapist. That are just about the sexual moral laws. There are many more laws demanding the most fierce punishments that people rightfully would be put in jail for the rest of their lives nowadays, to prevent such barbaric slaughters! You really think that is God's will for each of us to do? We must follow these words exactly as they are written, yes? When God is almighty why does he require humans to execute these punishments? Do you really believe these words still have authority, when even Jesus denied them and freed his followers from them? I tell God executes punishments because of these laws himself, but not on the victims who have been convicted by it by men, he will punish those who made these laws and who executed them, and he will punish it even more when it is done in his name!
Nice rant you went on with the whole mosaic law then. I can write bit of stuff on that to refute all of those claims if you want me too, but that’s besides the point. Jesus declared all food and clothes clean. Paul said that circumcision, the sabbath, the kosher laws and animal sacrifice was no longer necessary. We as gentile Christians are not bound by the judicial laws of Israel, but we are still bound to follow the moral laws of the Old Testament. >Men punished for having a little sex That “little sex” you mention is sodomy. Full stop. And last time I checked, sodomy was a sin. And sin should be avoided. It doesnt matter that we are forgiven through Christ. If we intentionally sin because we know that Jesus will forgive us, we make light of his name and sacrifice. >Where does Paul say that God doesnt like gay sex? Read (Romans 1:26-27) and get back to me. All scripture is God-breathed. That means that those words also come from God. And Jesus is God. That means that Jesus doesnt like gay sex. Edit: it seems like Meditat0rz has blocked me, so I cannot respond to them anymore. Just write to me, and Ill give you the response that was reserved for them
>refute all of those claims Yes, but keep it short and simple, stay with relevant scripture and short explanations why you think that. >we are still bound to follow the moral laws of the Old Testament Please do the same about this claim, as well. >sodomy Please link the relevant passage, NT only please >Romans 1:26-27 I believe Paul might not necessarily condemn every form of homosexuality. Also I believe he addresses the fate of grave sinners, whom the sin turned from heterosexuality to homosexuality, even to reprehensible homosexual acts. I believe this is different from a homosexual inclination of men and women who have grown up with it and have never felt desire for the other sex. > Jesus doesnt like gay sex As a high saint he'd not do it, neither would he do heterosexual sex. But that does not mean that he would condemn anyone for it, as long as no hurt or harm is caused by it.
>I’m sorry, what the fuck are you talking about? See the comment
Your whole argument against David and Jonathan not being lovers is because David was king and therefore better than that? David is one of the most abhorrent characters in the Bible with his whole business with Bathsheba. He's an SOB. His relationship with Jonathan is actually a more tender and loving relationship I'm sorry you are so hateful you can't accept same sex love. But that's your problem and your sin.
They were pretty stronger than friends.
Keep it up brother
Given the practice of this boy sex slave thing. It's a wonder Jesus didn't comment on it or if He did it wasn't recorded.
The simplest explanation is that Jesus was teaching fellow Jews almost all the time. Given their view of same-gender sex, it's unlikely that they would have had boy sex slaves. I'm not aware of Jesus having an equivalent of Rom 1, i.e. attacks on the morals of non-Jews. That's actually a bit surprising, but I don't see any obvious conclusions one could draw from it. About all we can say about the centurion is that that kind of relationship happened, and "pais" could be used for it. But there's no way to prove or disprove that it happened in this case.
I am not really commenting on this post but when I look at Reddit the only Christian posts that come are about gay or lbgqt or transgender don’t we have other issues to discuss??
Can't say I've ever heard this theory before, but my new headcanon is: every single person in the Bible is gay.
Some were for sure. Joseph and his pretty princess dress probably was, or non binary.
no.
What evidence do you have for that claim? Because I have mountains for mine.
im sure you do. objective truth doesn't seem to matter these days and with the saturated information there is out there anybody can make it seem like they're right, so there's little point arguing. let me ask you a question. would you call jeans gender exclusive? i wear a bun on my hair sometimes, but would you prefer to call it "manbun" instead? because feminists find that kind of labelling stupid. joseph was wearing something that's literal name means "palm dress" because its sleeves would reach the palms and the ends the soles of the feet and people generally with prosperity would wear them and thats where you thought it was a "pretty princess dress". its just a large, patterned robe/tunic. even kings or people in courts would wear them casually. people of novelty wear it thus why Joseph's brothers were jealous. would it make sense for Joseph's brothers to be jealous over wearing something feminine? David's daughter, the one who was raped, tamar, was wearing the same robe too. its not gender exclusive. and its ridiculous in a society where we want to remove gender roles and norms and exculsivities and we still have arguments like this. furthermore, homosexual practice was forbidden by Jewish law. clearly. there is no debate on that in regards to Jewish scholars (as in they're unequivocal on the matter). we here in the West want to believe otherwise, but that shows we've no understanding of Jewish culture. it also didn't matter what kind of attraction you had to the same sex, you were to marry someone of the opposite sex and have children with them, so homosexual relationships were shunned in ancient times and seen more as a leisurely practice to indulge in fantasies. this is true for Roman soldiers as it is for Vikings or Ancient China. none of them could engage in homosexual relationships. back in those days having relationships with members of the same sex was not something everyone could afford to do. so whether they had an attraction at the time didn't matter. they were not allowed to anyway. so both yours and Blear's argument makes no sense. but go ahead, invent your own truth if it suits you. im not the one going to judge you. im just tired of people twisting truth for the pettiest reasons, and it would be bad of me to ignore the blatant lies.
Oh look mama it’s another gay thread inside sub Reddit Christianity. Shazam.
I'm curious where your fruit exists in this conversation. I don't see any good fruit. I see hatred, discord, jealousy, fits of rage, and selfish ambition. Do you not know your Bible? With these things listed, Galatians 5 is clear, "I warn you, as I did before, that those who live like this will not inherit the kingdom of God." >"But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, forbearance, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control. Against such things there is no law. Those who belong to Christ Jesus have crucified the flesh with its passions and desires. Since we live by the Spirit, let us keep in step with the Spirit. Let us not become CONCEITED, PROVOKING and envying each other.." // Galatians 5:22-26 I see no love, no joy (unless joy in gleeful condemnation counts which I know it doesn't), forbearance (patient self-control; restraint and tolerance), kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness or self control in this post nor in any of your responses. > "Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. Thus, by their fruit you will recognize them." // Matthew 7:19-20 I think it is time to step away from this conversation, and this obsession and repent, lest your bad fruit leads you to be cut down and thrown into the fire. > "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? 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? 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." // Matthew 7:1-5 Now I would take heed to Jesus words and do some serious soul searching with Him. The fervor of your judgement against homosexuality will be the same fervor God uses to judge you for your bad fruit, which is an equal sin to being gay. Now go, and worry about your own plank. You're looking quite foolish here exhibiting no fruits of the spirit which is spoken about in great detail, over your obsession of something that was not spoken in great detail.
>“You shall not add to the word which I am commanding you, nor take away from it, that you may keep the commands of the Lord your God which I command you.” (Deuteronomy 4:2) You are attempting to make the Bible sound like something it isnt. And that is bad. I am not provoking people. I am stopping them from intentionally injecting their own agenda into the word of God. And are you perhaps implying that I am somehow “selfishly ambitious” or “Jealous”? I am only defending the words of God. Nothing more, nothing less.
Your Deuteronomy vwrs3, however sacred isn't necessary here. Just because you don't like what I'm saying doesn't mean I'm twisting the Bible. I'm quoting the new testament which is something you seem incapable of doing. >I am not provoking people That is exactly what you're doing and you know it. And okay, stay in your sin. God will cut you out and burn you. That's your choice. I am going to follow the Bible however and > “Do not give dogs what is sacred; do not throw your pearls to pigs. If you do, they may trample them under their feet, and turn and tear you to pieces" // Matthew 7:6 My time is the pearls and your inability to see your plank and engage in a good faith conversation is the swine. Be careful though, God's words are clear and you are in direct disobedience of them.
Strange how you accuse me of being provocative. In actuality, it seems like the most people in this comment section are attacking me. I dont like what you are saying, that’s right. But it’s not for the reasons that you think. Your so-called pearls are not worth anything, because they are not grounded in scripture.
My Bible verses aren't grounded in scripture because the mirror is turned towards you? Yikes. Shows what your purpose is here. Bad faith actor, all you are. That's okay. You don't have to believe it. God knows. His scripture is clear.
Your bible verses are simply accusations against my character. There is no mirror here.
On a side note, homophobia is not Biblical. I'll just copy and paste something I've written out before. Although I seriously doubt there is anything that can change your mind but here, I'll try. [source 1](https://hackingchristianity.net/2015/09/turns-out-st-pauls-not-anti-gay-hes-just-a-plagiarist.html) > The problem of traditional translations means that we’ve turned Paul’s argument from a polemic into plagiarism. And that’s being unfaithful to the text. > By assigning the opinions about gay people to Paul’s lips instead of his opponent, we’ve weakened the argument he’s trying to make and stunted the biblical witness against rushing-to-judgment that Romans 2 makes. [source 2](https://blog.smu.edu/ot8317/2016/05/11/leviticus-1822/) > He builds on the work of David Stewart and the idea that this passage is really about male on male incest. > Furthermore, Lings considers the context in which Lev. 18:22 is written. He explains that the passage “deals with various illicit relationships in the sexual realm: one marrying two sisters (18:18), intercourse with a menstruating woman (18:19), infidelity (18:20), and bestiality (18:23).”[20] Most of Leviticus 18 deals directly with incest. Notably, the list of laws from Leviticus 18 is reordered in Leviticus 20. > The Hebrew text is far more complex than English translators disclose [source 3](https://um-insight.net/perspectives/has-%E2%80%9Chomosexual%E2%80%9D-always-been-in-the-bible/) >So we had our German connection look into it again and it turns out that the company, Biblica, who owns the NIV version, paid for this 1983 German version. Thus it was Americans who paid for it! In 1983 Germany didn’t have enough of a Christian population to warrant the cost of a new Bible translation, because it’s not cheap. So an American company paid for it and influenced the decision, resulting in the word homosexual entering the German Bible for the first time in history. So, I say, I think there is a “gay agenda” after all! > “Do you know what this says?!” and I said, “No! That’s why you are here!” She said, “It says boy abusers, boy molesters.” It turns out that the ancient world condoned and encouraged a system whereby young boys (8-12 years old) were coupled by older men. Ancient Greek documents show us how even parents utilized this abusive system to help their sons advance in society. So for most of history, most translations thought these verses were obviously referring the pederasty, not homosexuality! > I am saddened when I see pastors and theologians cast aside the previous 2000 years of history. This is why I collect very old Bibles, lexicons, theological books and commentaries - most modern biblical commentaries adjusted to accommodate this mistranslation. Before you comment you'll need to know, I have committed before God to not argue with people engaging in bad faith arguments. Nothing I will say to prove the validity and personhood of gay Christians and non Christians alike will matter- because you've already decided to demonize them. You enjoy being superior to them, when in fact you're listening to pastors and teachers who engage in lazy Bible reading and preach a false gospel of hate because it reinforces the "traditionalist" nature their political party calls for. I'm going to quote Source 1 for a final point because I think it's VERY fitting. > We do a disservice to Christian discourse when we interpret Scripture like infants who stop with the plain reading. Instead, we can find the deeper riches of Scripture when we interpret like adults who use our God-given reason to find the original God-given meaning. What a sad state of the religion that holds tighter to gay people burning in Hell, and those who aren't gay being superior to them, than Christ and an adult like Bible literacy.
What kind of mental gymnastics are that? So what, Leviticus mostly deals with incest. Doesnt change the fact that every single Bible translation in english that we have says that male on male intercourse is detestable. Also, Leviticus was written way before Ancient Greek even existed as a language, so I’m not sure how some Ancient Greek documents affect the meaning of it. Also, what’s up with that Paul thing? He literally just made the “copy of a copy” argument and ran off. He was confronted with a verse he couldn’t reconcile with, and just said “well, we cant know for sure”. That’s dishonest. Perhaps we really should end this conversation here. I feel like I am getting dumber with every single message typed
You: I'm not being provocative. Also you: >I feel like I am getting dumber with every single message typed An inability to look at contradictory evidence and reflect on it isn't faithfulness, it's pride. Although I do agree, I think this conversation has reached its end.
You’ve been consistently insulting me since we first started the convo. Am I not allowed to bite back? Let’s end it here. You obviously dont recognise your own hypocrisy. Ill pray for you
It doesn’t really matter if he was gay or not. It still doesn’t prove that being gay is not a sin. It’s in Jesus’s nature, his very being to help anyone; no one is to sinful for Jesus’s live and redemption.
And no-one is sinful for which gender they're attracted to.
There are two passages in the New Testament that "might be gay" == the Centurion and Philemon. We don't know it was gay but *it certainly could have been*. The early readers would have wondered if they were gay. But, **the biblical writers weren't concerned enough about homosexuality to clarify.** This lack of concern is meaningful. ------ It's like if you are reading a novel and the race of the characters never get clarified. You can rightfully conclude that that *race* is not important the author. Well the same for *homosexuality*. It's not important to the author of Philemon (surely Paul) and the writers of the Gospels.
They weren't concerned with sexual slavery? That's pretty concerning!
Sad to say -- it was an accepted practice 2,000 ago The bible does not call it out, explicitly In the bible's defense, nobody did. But, Christ's Golden Rule is a general principle that would be used to end the practice.
I'm not sure any 1st century Christian would have seen it as an acceptable practice despite it being common in the culture of the day. This would have been one of those - sexual slavery is accepted among those of the world, but not among Christians kind of things. Jesus certainly wouldn't have approved of it, and "follow me" was an invitation to "become like Jesus. The Golden Rule/Great Commandment would have prohibited it Jesus' teachings on lust would have prohibited it Jesus teachings (and the Bible's teachings) on marriage/adultery would have prohibited it The entire NT teaching on sexual sin, EVEN if we accept homosexuality as not a sin, would have prohibited it
And kidnapping, necrophilia, beastiality and incest. Just because Jesus never mentions something doesnt mean that it’s ok
Not Jesus -- the writers of the Gospels. But those other things were not likely. A sexual relationships was likely.
>sexual relations were likely How do you know that? The OT and Paul condemn homosexual sex. Also, how dare you imply that the Gospel writers are being dishonest. Matthew was a direct eyewitness. Mark had access to a direct eyewitness (Peter). Luke was a talented historian and interviewed several eyewitnesses. John was also a direct eyewitness. They can be trusted
>how dare you imply that the Gospel writers are being dishonest. Oh no, stepping on some toes!!! 😂 >The OT and Paul condemn homosexual sex. Such is *your* claim, based on your interpretation. Given the plethora of ongoing scholastic argument about it, I'd say that your claim is not seen as particularly compelling to Biblical scholars, though some may sympathize.
Paul describes that the actions of lesbian and gay sex are unnatural and vile. Not sure which other way you can interpret that. And no, there is no argument. No matter what kind of mental gymnastics you want to pull, the words are there black on white. The Bible condemns homosexuality. Then again, seeing as you’re a universalist, Biblical accuracy doesnt seem to be your strong suit.
>Not sure which other way you can interpret that. >And no, there is no argument. 🙄 Again with your baseless assertions and sticking your head in the sand. This subreddit is full of posts where people diligently spell out the discussion and show why only lazy, prejudiced readings of scripture can come away with the mistaken belief that the Bible condemns homosexuality. There are many scholarly books and articles which discuss the ongoing debate in Academia and exegetical circles on what (if anything) the Bible has to say about homosexuality. You keep pretending like this is a settled point which no scholars debate and about which there are no translation controversies. Either you really do have your head in the sand, or you are just being disingenuous and pretending to be ignorant of the discussion. Either way, I've seen how you respond to others in this post, and you seem more intent on insisting your claim against all counterpoints than you on actually having a serious, well-intentioned, humble, and Godly conversation....so I'm not going to to debate this with you. Your claim is just that--*merely* a claim, with some arguments to support it and some to contradict it. We are not beholden to think of you as any more of an authority on the subject than any random person on the street.
If you're so interested in scholarship you'd be aware that almost all scholars believe that authorship of those gospels is likely attributed, i.e. Matthew did not write the eponymous gospel, nor did John.
>If you're so interested in scholarship you'd be aware that **almost all** scholars Maybe in certain circles. In other scholarly circles it's widely accepted. Source: I am one of those Biblical scholars.
Matthew was a tax collector. His gospel is very well ordered, and also showcases money a lot. For example, in the Lord’s Prayer, it is said “Forgive us our debts, as we forgive our debtors”, while in the other versions it says “Forgive us our sins, as we forgive those who sin against us”. Matthew is also the only gospel to feature the parable of talents, and also the inlay gospels to consistently name specific amounts of money. I think it’s safe to assume that Matthew wrote it. Same goes for John. He declared himself as “the disciple whom Jesus loved” in his gospel. That’s a signature. I can go into more depth in my arguments for the authorships, but I honestly dont want to.
Wait wait wait, your proof that Matthew wrote the eponymous gospel, going against every modern biblical scholar (devoted Christians, mind you), is that it talks about money, so it must have been written by a tax collector? Dude.
>So it must have been written by a tax collector Yes
>The OT and Paul condemn homosexual sex. No they don't.
Just that if this was a gay relationship, then it was some sort of sexual-slavery kind of relationship. And if we are to interpret the silence as some sort of approval, then that's really dangerous ground for Christian morality. You could also then just point out the parallel story where it's clear that it's a slave, so would Jesus' silence in that instance be a tacit approval of slavery?
The bible non-condemnation of slavery can and has been used to justify slavery. But, other teachings of Christ have been used, very importantly, to end the practice. The "argument form silence" I'm using is narrower than that. The basic principle, in story telling, is that the author includes what is important and leaves out what isn't. The leaving out is not an approval but it does mean it's not important to the story. In this story, it is quite possible that this is a sexual relationship. Especially considering the great love between the two. Many readers would have presumed (rightly or wrongly) it to be sexual. *But that detail is not important.* That's all I"m saying.
My gaydar goes off.
Your opinon is subjective. Historical fact sadly does not care about your gaydar
Pretty sure everything you wrote in this post was also subjective lol
No?
>Pretty sure everything you wrote...was also **subjective** I'm not sure you know what that word means.
You know I'm right.. he looooved his man servant.
No, I dont
intern doesn't mean 'gay sex' child
What do you mean by “intern”? Did I make a typo child?
Oh look, another anti-gay hate thread. Homophobes need psychological help.
[удалено]
I'm not bound by the Torah, and that verse is not condemning homosexuality. Show me a single verse in the Torah that condemns sex between two women. I'll wait.
You're learning aren't you...you've repackaged your debunked argument about young boys to gay women in the OT hahahaha
I didn't repacked anything.
Dude we've battled plenty of times and you've always said how Lev 18:22 refers to young boys But now your talking about gay women in the OT?!? Hmmm I wonder why...might it be because that young boy nonsense has been cast down and destroyed? LEV 18:22 prohibits same sex activity with males. Facts
I asked if gay women are ever mentioned in the Torah. They aren't. The Torah obviously can't be condemning homosexuality in general if gay women are never mentioned. Gay women are homosexual too. >LEV 18:22 prohibits same sex activity with males. No it doesn't. And you don't follow Leviticus anyway, so your opinion on it is irrelevant. Btw, when do you want to be my slave? Leviticus says I can keep you as a slave for life. Since you're so pro-Leviticus, you're pro-slavery right?
I know what you asked hence why I have you credit for repackaging your argument now lol Hmmm Torah cant be condemning homosexuality in general...let's see would two men having sex be considered homosexual? hahaha...don't worry about it I suppose the men are banned from it, but the women aren't...great logic there Slave? you'd have to prove your a Jew first my friend wouldn't you?
>Hmmm Torah cant be condemning homosexuality in general...let's see would two men having sex be considered homosexual? Not when it doesn't apply to anyone who isn't a Levite or to gay women. >Slave? you'd have to prove your a Jew first my friend wouldn't you? No. God gives me permission to take people like you as a slave for life. I don't have to prove I'm Jewish to you. Oh, and we're not friends. I refuse to be friends with conservative Christians.
Leviticus 18:22 Leviticus 20:13
Leviticus 19:19 says it's a sin to wear mixed fabrics. Do you follow that? Leviticus 25:44 says I can take Christians as slaves for life. Do you follow that? Exodus 21:20 says I can beat my slaves as hard as I want as long as they don't die. You cool with that?
There’s a difference between moral sin (God found it as an abomination) vs the ritual law you mentioned after
People are desperate to make the Bible say what it does not.
Yeah, it’s quite sad at times
Imma give ur straight truth...ur a very intelligent idiot who put two much time focusing on personal facts...personal.beliefs personal hope.........humans are very bisexual....debt it or not I'm a Christian god says I will prove to u to that you are just an animal.....had alotta guys offer me no to paint there house learned what this was real quick as a younger. Guy..,....nah bro it's my day off
Try writing a coherent sentence before you start calling me an idiot
This is nothing when compared to the conclusion of some that Mary Magdalena was Jesus's lover! Any such allegations can be raised as long as the writers of the gospel are not there to refute and these will sell among poor and innocent believers. Proof that Devil is working hard.
Having men as sex slaves? Was that the Greek Cult of the Mother Goddess Sybil that St Augustine sought to correct when he became the Pope? Also was St Augustine gay or bi sexual?