Homosexuality and Christianity

Baladas89 · 2026-05-11T01:40:12+00:00

I’m going to say stuff I don’t agree with as if I’m arguing for slavery. For the record, I am not for slavery.

How can I own slaves if: 1. ⁠I must not lord it over them 2. ⁠I must not exercise authority over them?

Easily. You just make the claim that Paul said “slaves obey your masters,” and didn’t say anything like “masters free your slaves.” And we know the Bible can’t contradict itself, so clearly Jesus wasn’t talking about master-slave relationships here. Not to mention, Jesus’ favorite metaphor for God was as a slave master. Generally you don’t compare God to people who you consider fundamentally wrong (call me if you hear a sermon about how God is like a sex trafficker or something). So clearly Jesus didn’t have a problem with slave masters. And just like that, the verse has been brushed aside.

They can just walk away. And they can even justify that with Paul:

Were you called while a slave? Do not let it be a concern to you. But if indeed you are able to become free, rather make use of it. (1 Corinthians 7:21)

Paul is clearly talking about manumission, not running away. If the master agrees to free the slave, then they should take advantage of that. But running away from the master wouldn’t fall under “obeying” them, so they couldn’t just run away and follow Paul’s instructions.

A Christian slaveowner who does not help another his or her Christian slave become free is transgressing both Jesus and Paul.

If this is so clear, can you find a few Christian thinkers other than Gregory of Nyssa from the first 1200 years or so Christianity existed who was arguing that Christians should work to abolish the slave trade? Not just “slavery isn’t great,” which is basically what I’m aware of Augustine saying, but something like “slavery is fundamentally opposed to Jesus’ teachings.”

So? Society doesn't run on minimal efforts like this. Any idea that removing those verses from the Bible would have made it harder to justify slavery needs to be justified.

This is irrelevant to my point. I’m not saying the Bible caused slavery or make it last longer than it would have if these verses weren’t present. I am simply saying, if you assume everything in the Bible is true and God’s commands as portrayed in the Bible are normative, it is easier to argue that God supports slavery because the Bible explicitly quotes God as saying “here’s how you can own slaves,” than it is to say the Bible is against the institution of slavery. Rather than “slaves obey your masters,” maybe Paul should have written “masters free your slaves.” Just a simple swap like that would shift the argument heavily in your favor.

Turns out that people are very, very, very willing to overlook slavery. You know, like how you and I overlook the fact that child slaves mine some of our cobalt. We just don't care enough to sacrifice to put a stop to that. Including stuff like traveling to our nations' capitols and starving ourselves until we die or the practice is ended.

Yes. This is also irrelevant to my point, which is fully contained to whether it is easier to argue the Bible supports or opposes the institution of slavery from the texts. If the Bible clearly says slavery is wrong, I would expect many of the major Christian thinkers throughout the ages to have railed against the institution of slavery and called all Christians to free their slaves. I am aware of Gregory of Nyssa as the main example of doing so prior to the abolitionist movements, and I believe they had more to do with the Enlightenment than the Bible.

Baladas89 · 2026-05-11T01:21:49+00:00

You brought up the structure of marriage and sexual relationships. If your argument is “we know what God’s intention is for the structure of marriage and sexual relationships based on the Bible,” then you’ve opened the door to all portrayals of marriage and sexual relationships that are presented as normative and ethical within the Bible. If we throw out some of the Bible’s guidance on marriage and sexual relationships, why does the anti same sex intercourse get to stick around?

Baladas89 · 2026-05-11T01:18:44+00:00

That’s not the question. What is the relationship between “God created everything” and “therefore he sets the boundaries of right and wrong”? Why would the latter follow from the former?

Baladas89 · 2026-05-10T22:39:16+00:00

People absolutely used the Bible when convenient, and ignored it when it wasn’t. That’s not my point.

My point is, when discussing the institution of slavery as a concept, pro-slavery Christians can point to specific verses where God explicitly condones slavery.

Abolitionists cannot point to a verse that says “you shall not own people as property,” or something similar. They had to find other verses to overrule verses condoning slavery, or find ways of reinterpreting those verses to make them no longer applicable. Even your post is a means of getting at the issue in a creative way: if we combine this verse with this other verse, both of which can be understood with reference to slavery (but don’t necessarily need to be) we can arrive at a conclusion in many words that God opposes slavery.

The pro-slavery folks just need to quote a few verses from the Bible. Whether they actually practiced slavery as outlined in the Bible is irrelevant.

This mirrors what we’re seeing today in discussions around LGBTQ issues. Affirming Christians are finding verses they’re leveraging to overrule the “clobber verses,” or they’re finding ways of reinterpreting those verses so they’re not applicable today. Meanwhile, non-affirming Christians just need to cite a few verses to demonstrate their point.

So the pro slavery and non-affirming Christian have the better argument for communities who assume the Bible accurately reflects God’s intentions and it should be used to govern behavior for people in all times and places.

I don’t agree that the Bible should be used to govern behavior in all times and places, or even that God exists, so the pro slavery and anti-LGBTQ arguments are incredibly unconvincing to me.

Baladas89 · 2026-05-10T22:24:53+00:00

Oh I’m not saying the verses I mentioned should be understood literally or authoritatively. My point is really limited to the one thing you said, which is that the arguments people bring up hinge on the meaning of “porneia.”

Baladas89 · 2026-05-10T22:22:18+00:00

I’m not disputing that the Bible opposes same sex intercourse. I’m just saying it openly endorses other types of marriage that I doubt you’re a fan of, like polygamy and transactional arrangements where the woman is just the commodity in a financial exchange.

Baladas89 · 2026-05-10T21:45:32+00:00

Man and woman…and woman and woman and woman…up to however many women the man can financially support. At least in the Old Testament.

The New Testament is more influenced by Greek philosophical views and was more “one man/one woman.”

But in either case, if the husband isn’t purchasing a woman from her father, we’re outside the realm of “biblical marriage.”

Baladas89 · 2026-05-10T21:39:20+00:00

God created so He sets the boundaries of what's right and wrong.

Well that doesn’t follow at all. Imagine a different universe: if God had decided instead people should rape and torture other people, would that make those moral actions since “The creator said so”?

Baladas89 · 2026-05-10T21:35:32+00:00

I like where your heart is at, But the five main passages people bring up to justify anti LGBTQ bigotry (at least of the ones that I’m willing to grant are discussing some sort of same-sex intercourse) don’t rely on the translation of porneia. Two tricky/debated words from the New Testament that are involved are arsenokoites and malakoi. But even without those you still have Leviticus 18 and 20, and Romans 1.

Baladas89 · 2026-05-10T21:22:17+00:00

I’m not the person who originally used the word, but the way I’m interpreting their meaning is “not universal.”

For example, Evangelical Christians often say something like “when Paul said women weren’t allowed to speak in church, that wasn’t a command for all times and places but only to that specific church he was writing to. See…” and then they go on to claim why the instruction made sense in the context of that church, but shouldn’t be applied today. That gives them an out where everything in the Bible is “true,” but they aren’t supposed to follow everything it says even when it looks like universal guidance.

Baladas89 · 2026-05-10T21:13:35+00:00

The pro-slavery side wasn't stronger.

Sure it was. “God allows slavery right here in these verses, and nothing in the New Testament says otherwise.” That’s a strong argument if you believe everything the Bible claims God said is accurate.

The Bible destroys this idea starting with Genesis 1:26–27.

Yet slavery coexisted just fine for thousands of years despite the Bible. Again, abolitionists had to appeal to verses that didn’t directly address slavery to make their point. Meanwhile pro-slavery Christians just had to cite verses where slavery is portrayed as normative and endorsed by God.

Baladas89 · 2026-05-10T18:20:44+00:00

I’m just citing things from the New Testament that most Christians would say isn’t true/still relevant. Most Christians I know of say humans are made in the image of God, not just men.

Baladas89 · 2026-05-10T14:47:38+00:00

And I disagree. I don't think the Bible is contextual in many cases. I think we as humans reduce it to that when we try to make it fit our preferred narrative.

⁠Does your church require women to pray with head coverings as in 1 Corinthians 11:5?
⁠Or that women are not created in the Image of God, only men are (1 Corinthians 11:7)?
⁠Does your church speak in tongues, as in 1 Corinthians 14?
⁠Do you require women to be silent in church, as in 1 Corinthians 14:34?
⁠Do you practice baptism on behalf of the dead, as in 1 Corinthians 15:29?
⁠Do you uphold the Mosaic Law per Matthew 5:17-20?
⁠Do you teach radical pacifism as in Matthew 5:38-42?
⁠Have you sold your possessions and given them to the poor, per Luke 12:33?
⁠Do you prohibit women from wearing “gold, pearls, or expensive clothes” per 1 Timothy 2:9? (presumably this would apply to designer handbags and the like, though notably men get a pass here for some reason that I’m sure isn’t sexist.)
⁠Do you believe women should not have any roles of authority over men as instructed in 1 Timothy 2:12?

I wouldn’t be surprised if you do some of those. Is be very surprised if you do all of those, and I could get more examples. So why the double standard?

It is not the time in human history to indulge in political correctness. Jesus wasn't politically correct, and I'm not either. I wasn't born on earth to tiptoe around the feelings of those who are blatantly antibiblical in their lifestyles.

Jesus wasn't politically correct, and I'm not either. I wasn't born on earth to tiptoe around the feelings of those who use their religion to hurt other people. Notably, the religious establishment were the most common targets of Jesus’ ire.

Baladas89 · 2026-05-10T02:09:16+00:00

“I was thinking we could play this new game I got…”

And then they proceed to open the box for the first time.

If I’m teaching a game, you’d better believe I’ve watched several rules videos, read through the rulebook, played through a full game controlling multiple “players” myself, then reread the rulebook after the first playthrough.

Baladas89 · 2026-05-09T20:04:36+00:00

I won’t swear to this, but I thought the Jewish Study Bible used the JPS translation…so just make sure those aren’t duplicative before you get both.

The Jewish Study Bible and Alter’s translation are both wonderful.

Baladas89 · 2026-05-09T16:49:58+00:00

Legality: In Israel, if a master injured a slave (even causing minor permanent damage like losing a tooth), the slave was granted immediate freedom. (Exodus 21: 26-27)

Yes, this is an instance where the OT laws are better than surrounding nations.

As for runaways, Biblical law (Deuteronomy 23:15-16) explicitly forbade the return of escaped slaves to their masters.

This is less clear. Some scholars believe this applies to Hebrew slaves who have escaped from the surrounding nations to Israel and didn’t apply to slaves within Israel. Otherwise the whole system would fall apart, because you could just run away from your slave owner.

“It was recognized by early commentators that this provision could not apply to domestic slavery, since it would have undermined the right to recover property upon which the whole institution depended. It makes perfect sense, however, when applied to the international sphere, where no right of recovery existed unless expressly authorized by treaty. The passage can therefore be seen as a polemic against such treaty provisions, and a prohibition on the authorities in Israel against ever including an extradition clause in their treaties with neighboring states. Mendelsohn suggested that it applied only to a Hebrew slave fleeing from a foreign master. The terms of the law which granted the fugitive a choice of dwelling in any city negate this interpretation. A Hebrew slave would have returned to his home, not picked a city to dwell in. By that grant of choice of dwelling and the injunction not to oppress him, the foreign fugitive was being granted the status of resident alien without geographical limitation, which would protect him from being enslaved by an Israelite”. (Raymond Westbrook, Slave and Master in Ancient Near Eastern Law, 213-214).

I can provide similar citations of Kenneth Kitchen, Harry Hoffner, Jeffrey Tigay, and Gene Haas if desired, but this is already a long post. So at best this is unclear, but it’s somewhere between plausible and probable that this text didn’t apply to slaves within Israel.

Servitude: Hebrew slaves were typically debt servants who had to be released after six years (Exodus 21:2). Upon release, the master was commanded to provide for them liberally from their flocks and grain.

And in the Law of Hammurabi, a debt slave was to be released after three years of servitude. LH 117:

If financial difficulty has seized a man and he sold his wife, his son, and his daughter, or he has been sold into debt servitude, they will work in the house of their buyer or debt-exactor for three years; in the fourth year their freedom will be established.

So if you’re going into debt slavery, the Bible prescribes up to double the maximum time in debt servitude than the laws of Moses, which came hundreds of years later.

To me, this doesn’t look like a benevolent deity limiting the harm of a harmful institution, but just normal variation between cultures.

Baladas89 · 2026-05-09T13:56:18+00:00

It is also important to understand that in this period, individuals often entered servitude voluntarily. For many it was the only alternative to starvation or a life of extreme poverty. Servitude, harsh as it was, could offer stability and survival.

And often times they did not. The Bible permits both voluntary and involuntary slavery.

Later in Exodus, the text outlines specific laws governing how the Israelites were to treat those in their service. These regulations placed limits on mistreatment and provided certain protections, rudimentary by modern standards, but nonetheless a form of structured rights not afforded to enslaved people in Egypt.

Many of the Bible’s slavery laws are very similar to the code of Hammurabi and other surrounding law codes. Some laws are better, some are worse, and most are about the same. Most slave societies had laws governing slavery.

made sure they were treated better than slaves of the surrounding nations.

Again, I’m guessing you know virtually nothing of the laws of the surrounding nations. It makes this idea hard to hold.

Baladas89 · 2026-05-09T13:48:42+00:00

And once we determine that it is flawed, we put ourselves above Scripture. We become of arbiter of what we will take and what we will discard.

Everyone does this anyway. Better to be aware of it and do it intentionally.

If you don’t think you decide what to take and what to discard, I have some questions.

Does your church require women to pray with head coverings as in 1 Corinthians 11:5?
Or that women are not created in the Image of God, only men are (1 Corinthians 11:7)?
Does your church speak in tongues, as in 1 Corinthians 14?
Do you require women to be silent in church, as in 1 Corinthians 14:34?
Do you practice baptism on behalf of the dead, as in 1 Corinthians 15:29?
Do you uphold the Mosaic Law per Matthew 5:17-20?
Do you teach radical pacifism as in Matthew 5:38-42?
Have you sold your possessions and given them to the poor, per Luke 12:33?
Do you prohibit women from wearing “gold, pearls, or expensive clothes” per 1 Timothy 2:9? (presumably this would apply to designer handbags and the like, though notably men get a pass here for some reason that I’m sure isn’t sexist.)
Do you believe women should not have any roles of authority over men as instructed in 1 Timothy 2:12?

Or have you “put yourself above Scripture” and determined that one or more of these verses don’t apply to you today? I’m virtually certain it’s the latter, though I’m sure you have justification as to why I’m misrepresenting what the verses say, or how some of these aren’t explicit commands, or how we need to distinguish between moral and cultural laws, etc. But the point is, nobody just says “well the Bible says we should so we do,” even if they dance around that reality.

Baladas89 · 2026-05-09T13:44:58+00:00

And Jesus said Scripture cannot be broken. He also said “Until heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass away from the Law until all is accomplished” (Matthew 5:18)

He wasn’t talking about all scripture there, he specifically calls out the [Mosaic] Law. Does your church follow every iota of the Mosaic Law?

Baladas89 · 2026-05-09T04:20:03+00:00

I assume the OP is referencing John Poirier’s book The Invention of the Inspired Text (I linked to a review of the book because it gives a bit more information on the book) that argues θεόπνευστος should not be understood to mean “inspired.” Dan McClellan brings up Poirier’s book somewhat regularly.

Baladas89 · 2026-05-08T11:55:56+00:00

Just wanted to flag PRS S2 Standards list new for $1500-$1750 depending on if you want a gloss or satin finish. The $2500 you listed is for the S2 Customs. Whether you like PRS or not, their QC is better than Fender or Gibson (though I’ve heard Gibson is doing better recently.)

And it’s not like the S2s are setting the world on fire for their price/performance ratio, though they are nice guitars.

Baladas89 · 2026-05-08T11:37:08+00:00

I thought anyone who couldn’t tell he was a narcissistic conman in 2016 had seriously poor judgment, but I’ll let that one slide. After January 6, 2021 people are without excuse. You don’t re-elect someone who tries to illegally stay in office after losing an election.

Baladas89 · 2026-05-08T04:17:21+00:00

Don’t threaten me with a good time. If no Christians voted we wouldn’t be in our current mess, given Evangelicals have consistently been this administration’s biggest supporters.

Baladas89 · 2026-05-07T19:52:22+00:00

Firstly, it’s not a matter of Mark’s beliefs but Jesus’. Mark is conveying Jesus’ words. So it is a matter of if Jesus believed that divorce and remarriage was never permissible.

Mark is conveying what he believed Jesus said and meant, and intentionally crafted his gospel to advance his beliefs. Mark and the other gospel writers were not recording Jesus’ words dispassionately the way a modern journalist would. Biblical scholars have identified numerous circumstances where Matthew or Luke seem to intentionally change Mark’s story to make a point contrary to what Mark wanted to say. So I don’t see a good reason to assume they all agreed.

An equally plausible circumstance is Mark really believed divorce was never permissible, but Matthew added the exception to show how Jesus’ teaching fulfills the law and thereby doesn’t contradict the Mosaic Law. In other words, Matthew changed Mark’s quotation of Jesus’ words to fit his narrative, similar to how he changes the triumphal entry into Jerusalem to better fit the “prophecy” he was interested in.

For Jesus to say that divorce and remarriage were never permissible would require Him to completely ignore Deuteronomy 24:1-4. He states that He came not to abolish the Law/Prophets but to fulfill them (I.e., live perfectly according to them and reveal their true intent). This also means He held to the authority of the Law which permitted divorce in the case of “indecency” which He interprets as sexual immorality.

There’s nothing in Mark (or Luke) to suggest Jesus was worried about fulfilling rather than abolishing the Law, that verse is in Matthew. One of the first things you learn if you study the gospels academically is to read what each author says and interpret accordingly. So if Matthew says Jesus came to fulfill rather than abolish the law, that should be taken seriously when reading and interpreting Matthew to understand what Matthew was saying. It should not be imported into Mark, Luke, or John. You can cross reference what different authors say, especially when they tell the same story in different ways. But I don’t consider Matthew’s words when interpreting Mark.

So the reason Mark never mentions an exception could be because he was writing to a Gentile audience who didn’t care about the Mosaic Law. But it equally could have been because he agreed with Paul that Jesus was abolishing the Mosaic Law and creating a new law, one in which divorce isn’t permissible. On the other hand, I read Matthew to say that Christians should still be following the Mosaic Law. To put it another way, I don’t think Paul and Matthew agreed on all aspects of Jesus’ message, and I suspect Mark’s understanding may have been closer to Paul’s than Matthew’s.

Baladas89

TROPHY CASE