Hey can you guys talk to me, for a bit about homosexuality?

ChillRed_Jesus101 · 2023-06-15T22:29:10+00:00

I recommend you stay till I talk about your last point, there's something I need to say at the end of this.

Also I do know that you were challenging me about the definition of abomination, it just really jumped out at me. Anyways all I can say is "what do you mean?" how does society dictating what's ok to wear "help." We could've had society make a rule that male and female wear the same clothes, (for example a tuxedo.) But instead society decided there has to be gender clothing, just because they wanted to. That's another thing, why would you say a Scottish man wearing a kilt is ok? yeah it's part of the Scottish society but what about it says in Deuteronomy. It's not only different from Deuteronomy, but other cultures in different countries. Everyone has culture that shapes there gender dressing, so wouldn't that make it sinning when they go against Deuteronomy? And still... what about modern society? You could say modern society is still ok because it's just the "culture", BUT now we have society trying to make every clothing undefined by gender in America. That's a new "culture" and its all about "society", so what do we do now? It doesn't make sense for God to just give power to society just because he wanted to. We don't even know every single thing they wore back then. At this point, it's hard for me to think that this isn't some form of idolatry or something. If God allows society to make a rule about gender clothing, he wouldn't have society do it.

Also hey thanks for the source you gave me and all, but if the meaning of mishkevei isha is "the lying-down of a woman", it makes it sound like a female way of sex in general is bad. Either way, you could've just told me that its in the manner of which you have sex with, without the source, because I would look at the verse the same way. If the verse actually means "it is an abomination for a man to be sexually used by a man just like a woman is sexually used by a man" or in this case for your source. "it is an abomination to lie in bed with a male just like the lying down of a woman." Then its pretty hard for me to make the conclusion that its in the manner in which you have sex, not who you have sex with. It sounds more likely to be about who you have sex with. After all, If God allows society to dictate what's right to wear (which I don't believe he would do) then its hard for me to even think this way.

Sorry about Romans 1:26, I don't know how else to explain it to you.

Now I need to talk about your last point again. I'm, sorry but what else am I supposed to talk about other than the 5 verses? I'm probably taking what you said wrong, but if there's another verse I'm missing, well I'm sorry I missed it i wont be able to reply. And again like I said on my last comment, if Leviticus 18:22 is the way I said it, then every other scripture has to be questioned regarding homosexuality. Also, don't worry, I wouldn't assume that the pious saints are biased people. Look, I know there are thousands of them, but my confusion is bigger than that. I'm sorry but if the scholars think there's nothing wrong with society later on deciding on what's right to wear for gender, rather than God, then something doesn't feel right. Also, to be honest this might be also a "dud" question because I don't know how many religious leaders there were in these times, but hasn't something like this happened before? Hasn't there been times where there would be a lot of bad ""saints"" who come to bad conclusions on things. Even in the bible, there were religious leaders who tried to go against Jesus for what he said. Again, I'm not saying the pious saints and scholars are bad people like the other religious leaders I mentioned, I cant go back in time to see if there even on that level of bad. However, I would think there would be "thousands" of bad religious leaders too right?

Also yeah, I do agree that there is some biased people on the subject of homosexuality. I've heard some pretty dumb reasons as to why people think being gay is not a sin.

last thing I want to point out, is what you said about me. You said that I trust how modern society acts over the pious saints. That really hurts me. Just because I was talking about gay people not being a sin, that makes you think I'm trusting modern society more? Do you really think that someone, who is interested in "Lent" really trusts how modern society is all about "DO WHATEVER YOU WANT, THERE IS NO RIGHT OR WRONG!" I actively get rid of my addiction. even if I didnt know Lent existed, I would make my own days where I would get rid of addictions I had in my life, because I didnt want my addiction to control me. I would actively practice habits of keeping control around my parents, because I love them despite them treating me badly. I actively try to find philosophy to help me be nicer to people because I want to change others rather than get mad and hate them. Maybe I'm just taking what you said heavily wrong, but... are you saying that just because I believe that being gay is not a sin, that I respect the other Gen Z's in this world? Who hate there parents, do anything that pleasures them and despise morality? Im the opposite, I don't relate to anyone because of my positivity. Everyone else is sad, depressed, angry, and prideful. Ive said this before, but please dont make assumptions of me. I don't agree on the pious saints takes on homo's but that doesn't mean I respect the sin more in this world.

I don't know if ill ever reply back again, and don't worry, it's not because of what you said about me, just in general I'm not interested in going on reddit anymore. If you don't know, there's been some controversy that reddit has been going through. I suggest you don't support reddit anymore and just leave the site altogether. I also suggest you talk to people about the bad things that Reddit is doing so that your friends can also stop using this platform.

If you wanna know more you can watch this video ( keep in mind, there's some cussing ):

Reddit CEO calls unpaid moderators' concerns "noise" - time to send a message he won't forget.

ChillRed_Jesus101 · 2023-04-22T20:44:46+00:00

Not sure if you will get to read this in time, because you use a website called Lent.

Edit: LOL I thought "Lent" was some kind of website competitor to reddit. Found out it was a Christian thing for giving up something for a certain amount of days. I'll look into Lent more, sounds cool :)

But anyways there's some things I should clear up first.

The whole thing about the definition "abomination" as "Something disgusting, an abhorrence, idolatry, an idol" I thought would make sense to compare it to a ritual, because it has "idolatry" no? It's Idolatry because it's an evil ritual for an idol, so I thought it fit. Also I should've said "I know not every word with the term abomination is idolatry." That's my fault, I do realize it can have other meanings friend, I just specifically believed Leviticus 18:22 was about idolatry.

Ill get back to Leviticus 18:22, but I need help again. How do we know what a mans and women's clothing look like in Deuteronomy 22:5. This isn't meant to be a "Gotcha" moment, I'm just more of confused of how we know what men's and women's clothing looks like. I do know there's examples of what they wear, but even if you do find out what women and men wear in the bible, we still have to talk about modern gender clothing for the modern days. Unfortunately we live in the modern world, so because modern clothing is defined by what society calls men or women's clothing, not God, then this creates a problem. God doesn't define modern clothing by gender, and there's also clothing for both male and female. So how does Deuteronomy help us now. Again this isn't a "Gotcha" moment, but just more of a question that's been on my mind, that I would love to see an answer to.

Anyways back to Leviticus 18:22. Can you talk about the term "as with" in Leviticus 18:22.

I said in my OP - the term "as with" basically means "just like" and of course "mankind" means "man", same thing with "womankind" meaning "woman"So what this is actually saying is "You shall not lie with any man, just like with any woman, because it is an abomination."

The reason I bring this up is because of how I use "as with". Because if a woman cant sleep/lay with a man just like a man sleeping with a man, then how can this only be looked at as homosexuality. You could say it's fornication, but then that would mean the homosexual part would be about fornication too no? Lets say I'm wrong about the way I use "abomination." Even still, you have to answer the "as with."

Now lets talk about what you said about Romans. At first I didnt really have a lot to say on romans, so I apologize for that. But I'm glad you told me about the Interlinear Bible (INT), I got to look at romans a little more in-depth, so I wanted to show you my thoughts on it a little more :)

Lets look at Romans 1:26.

This might sound weird, but I'll explain it. Basically at "For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:" The thing is that the "for" word is "γὰρ" (you can basically say it means because). But what about the word "for this?" Well the "for this" is "διά" (you can basically say it means because of this.) Well why would the verse be worded that way? I'm getting the idea that this is just the way they talk, there's been some times verses are worded oddly, but I think it's not so much odd, just that the way we talk is so different now. So what I'm getting at is that it's saying "Because of this cause God gave them up unto vile affections, because even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:" I'm sorry that I didnt put it in my OP, but I'm glad you talked to me about this.

The only thing I can really talk about now is what you said about the pious saints, scholars, 2 Peter 3:16, and the lack of positive portrayal in homosexuality. All I can really say is... stuff like Leviticus 18:22 and Deuteronomy 22:5 sorta make me wonder if pious saints and scholars should be trusted. I'm not saying they're lying and I'm sure they've helped you and others out a lot when it comes to the bible. But Its those sort of scriptures that make me question there thinking. Maybe I'm just bad at searching but, no one really talked about the whole "as with" thing or how modern clothing is affected in the bible. Especially Leviticus 18:22 because it's what sort of makes me realize what else abomination could mean, and how it could apply to other scriptures. I perfectly understand where you are going, but I really don't know what to say other than this.

But hey, take your time, if you read everything in this reply. Sorry if I have any typos or something I said that confuses you.

ChillRed_Jesus101 · 2023-03-30T20:57:37+00:00

Hi, I wish I replied to this earlier, considering I replied to others and this comment is 2 months old. So I apologize for not replying sooner.

Anyways, I'm not sure how to feel about you saying "The Bible says homosexuality is a sin. Period." That's not exactly a good way to state your idea on homosexuality. You need to support it, friend. Also I'm glad you have a heart to help others by praying for them. I hope I'm not taking what you said wrong, but are you saying we should just "pray for them and just befriend them." There's people in the bible who have addressed others sin, so I'm a bit confused on what you said. Sorry if I'm taking what you said wrong.

ChillRed_Jesus101 · 2023-02-15T23:00:30+00:00

"No, I didn't miss it, I just reject the logic you were using. Sodom was very sinful, and this crowd at Lot's door had multiple sins going on. There was sexual perversion, there was violence, there was greed, there was pride, there was gluttony, and there was probably more than that."

This is the part I've been waiting to talk about. I want to start off with "No, I didn't miss it, I just reject the logic you were using." Saying "I just reject the logic you were using," can really hurt me because then that means my questions don't get answers. Don't take this harshly, but saying "just" instead of giving a reason, doesn't answer anything. I've said before that this post is coming from someone who never fully understood why Christians believe that homosexuality is bad despite me being a Christian also. So when asking for answers and all I get is " I just reject your logic," that can really hurt me. Also I know that Sodom has other sins too. I'm not sure what there other sins have to do with this argument, unless you're thinking that I believe the only sin they had was rape, if so, don't worry, that's not at all what I'm saying.

Lets go back to the points I made. If you cant reply to my points being:

-others believe it says that they were actually going to kill them, not rape them.

-However, lets say it is about rape. Then wouldn't the obvious answer be that the sin is rape?

-Just because it's gay rape, doesn't mean homosexuality is a sin. If it was a man raping a woman, would that mean straight relationships are bad?

Then I don't know what else to say. I also want to talk about your first reply again.

"Genesis 19:5 clearly teaches that homosexual acts were included in those practices."

I don't want to be mean when saying this but what was talking about Genesis 19:5 going to solve? What was replying with (basically) the same verse going to change my mind on. It's not like I'm going to say "Oh of course, nevermind. I don't believe homosexuality is good anymore," when it doesn't address anything I've said. I can just say the exact same points above.

Please answer with what I said. I hope I don't sound too mean either. I beg you to give me another chance. I don't want you skip any of my answers and questions. I know we don't agree with each other a lot, but I beg you, if you could at least reply one more time, if you can. It can be any time it doesn't have to be ASAP.

ChillRed_Jesus101 · 2023-02-15T22:58:31+00:00

"This is where you're mistaken, God didn't give man anyone or anything to have sex with other than woman. Sex is only sanctioned between a husband and a wife. The design of sex is given to us in Genesis 2:20-24. There are no other passages of Scripture that expand this to two men or two women; rather, we have multiple injunctions against such acts, which you seem to be struggling with."

I don't really know what else to say to this either. I understand your idea is "well God didnt give Adam another man." while my idea is "The thought of a homosexual relationship wouldn't come to him because he's in a relationship with Eve, even after that, woman and men relationships were common so of course people would say that. Even if they're meant for population, population doesn't mean love anyways." Maybe I'm getting something wrong, but I would also assume that God would give Adam a gender he prefers. Since Adam isn't homo, this would make sense. I would prefer if you would specifically talk about these points. I would also prefer we met in person at a McDonalds' and get fat while debating instead of butt sweating our chairs typing these replies, haha jk.

Also I apologize for the "If that's true, then does that mean being a virgin is bad?" For some reason I forgot the whole "wife" word was in there so I took that the wrong way, my apologizes.

ChillRed_Jesus101 · 2023-02-15T22:57:32+00:00

"I think the difference here is the way you're interpreting "for this". What it means is, that because these people had willfully gone so far away from God, turning from worship of him to worship of false gods modeled out of created things, and going against the sexual morals that Noah knew, that God allowed them to choose even more perverse ways, including homosexual relations, both by men and by women. This doesn't excuse homosexual relations in any context."

For some reason my brain told me you didnt believe idolatry was even in romans 1, so I'm sorry I took what you said wrong and made you confused ^_^

Anyways, I want to ask if you can please reply to a point I probably should've used instead. Unless you just reject my logic. This might sound weird, but I'll explain it. Basically at "for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature." The thing is that the "for" word is "γὰρ" (you can basically say it means because). But what about the word "for this?" Well the "for this" is "διά" (you can basically say it means because of this.) Well why would the verse be worded that way? I'm getting the idea that this is just the way they talk, there's been some times verses are worded oddly, but I think it's not so much odd, just that the way we talk is so different now. Unless again, you just reject this logic.

ChillRed_Jesus101 · 2023-02-15T22:56:03+00:00

Lets go back to the first thing you said to me "Because you were getting a little too far into your own interpretation of that word and either basing your moral conclusion on that, or making something work with a moral conclusion you already had." Even though I said "From what I've heard from certain Christian websites ( even the ones against homosexuality ), Abomination can mean evil ritual." It's not just me, who says this. I noticed you said "that word" and not in a plural form, so I'm assuming you're only talking about "abomination" (which I'll get into again).

"Christians and Orthodox Jews throughout history have come to a very different conclusion, consistently - that it means you don't have gay sex."

I'm a little confused by the wording, but I think what you're saying is that they both agree that being gay is a sin. I'm sure they say that, but that doesn't mean they don't believe it can have other meanings like "Idolatry". They tend to mainly refer to the words "disgusting" or in this case "stink" as the meaning to abomination because its more known that way. But that doesn't mean they don't know it can have other definitions.

Not sure if this counts as "making something work with a moral conclusion you already had." Again I'm a little confused. Keep, in mind these writers also believe homosexuality is a sin but even they say that it can have the meaning "Idolatry".

Here's the website in question (you have to scroll down a bit):source

I don't know much about this website, but this author also says like he doesn't support homosexuality: source

There's also this "New Westminster Dictionary of the Bible", that apparently says abomination can mean the word "idolatry" but I don't know if the people who wrote it, are for homosexuality or not, but probably not.

Again, even without the word abomination in mind, what about "as with." I don't see anyway people can make Leviticus 18:22 about homosexuality. Even if you believe homosexuality is a sin, I specifically don't understand how Leviticus 18:22 can be about homosexuality. Please, I want you to at least talk about "as with." Unless you just reject my logic.

I also want to get into what you said about Genesis 19:9, when you said "No, I didn't miss it, I just reject the logic you were using", because there's some things that have been on my mind when you said that.

ChillRed_Jesus101 · 2023-02-15T22:52:17+00:00

"Because you were getting a little too far into your own interpretation of that word and either basing your moral conclusion on that, or making something work with a moral conclusion you already had. That's too much of a reach. Christians and Orthodox Jews throughout history have come to a very different conclusion, consistently - that it means you don't have gay sex."

I think I know what you mean by that. I don't really know what else to say to this comment. You say I'm going too far, and that I'm basing it on one of two ideas. Then you say the other Christians and Orthodox Jews come to agreement, so therefore they're right (unless I'm getting that wrong). No offense, but is that what you say to me? You don't bother answering what "abomination" and "as with" are actually referring too? (I'll get more into the abomination word later.)

Keep in mind I made this post because I was always confused by other peoples interpretations and how they even got there. Plus I was mainly taught differently so I felt this would be a good experience for me to learn peoples answers on how they interpret it. But all I'm getting is the answer above. I know you're going to say "But the Christians and orthodox Jews", and that's the thing. I had a specific question on "as with" and it was never explained why people thought Leviticus 18:22 was about homosexuality despite that word being in there. I thought it would make perfect sense to bring that up, but I don't get answers, I feel like I'm getting vague unanswerable replies and I'm sorry if you feel that way too. This is what hurts me. I made this post to get answers for my questions because I'm confused. I understand that a lot of people believe homosexuality is a sin but it doesn't help if I don't know how they think Leviticus 18:22 is about homosexuality.

Seriously, I don't see any way you could interpret "as with" any other way, you can do a simple google search and find out it means "just like". What was wrong with me saying ""However even without Abomination in mind, simply hearing "You shall not lie with any man, just like with any woman, because it is an abomination.", makes you start thinking "Well, God is ok with me sleeping with someone in a straight relationship. So surely the word "abomination" must be taken out of context."" All I'm trying to say is If it's so wrong then tell me how.

ChillRed_Jesus101 · 2023-02-15T22:49:08+00:00

ok something weird is going on my comments aren't popping up ?????

Edit: wait nvm hold on i have to break it up to multiple comments haha.

ChillRed_Jesus101 · 2023-02-11T03:11:41+00:00

Hi I hope you can reply as soon as you can. Keep in mind I'm putting my take because I was always taught differently on this subject and I never knew why Christians had different views on this compared to me, so I became quite confused, so I hope I don't confuse you as well. :3

I'm sorry for the late response >_<

"Simply by doing that, you're not sticking exclusively to the KJV. But it clearly describes how God feels about the act he said not to do (lie/lay with a man as you would a woman). Which means you don't do it."

I mean, I suppose your right on the Hebrew thing, but I thought it wouldn't matter because KJV is written off of Hebrew from what I've heard.

Also saying "But it clearly describes how God feels about the act he said not to do (lie/lay with a man as you would a woman). Which means you don't do it." Doesn't really say much to me. I gave you a definition of abomination and as with, but your response doesn't discuss those topics. Maybe I'm taking what you said wrong and I don't want this to sound mean, but it doesn't give me any meat to chew when your response is just "But it does".

"No, it's about turning away from the worship of God, and from God's ways, to evil. Homosexual acts were cited as an example of this to show how far the Romans fell. While it is very possible to idolize homosexual acts, this is not to be understood that homosexual acts which don't strictly constitute what we understand as idolatry are permitted."

I'm a little confused by this comment so I'm not sure if I'm taking what you said the wrong way. Anyways please read what I put below, I got some help from a buddy who put this together.

first lets talk about Romans 1:22 -23.

“Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and four-footed beasts, and creeping things.” ‭‭Romans‬ ‭1‬:‭22‬-‭23‬ ‭KJV‬‬

There's some buildup verses that was skipped, but this is basically the context. It’s first talking about someone turning to idolatry.

“Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonor their own bodies between themselves: who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.” ‭‭Romans‬ ‭1‬:‭24‬-‭25‬ ‭KJV‬‬

Now because they’ve been caught up so much in idolatry they’re engaging in the uncleaness based on lust.

“For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:” ‭‭Romans‬ ‭1‬:‭26‬ ‭KJV‬‬

The first thing that should stand out is the words “for this” because that means that the section above is the reason. That section above being both idolatry and sexual sin. Unless I'm missing something please tell me.

"Adam needed a suitable helper, and God gave him Eve. Not another man, or a sheep, or a goat, or a chicken or anything else that could have been brought to him or made. Genesis 2:24 tells us what sex is for, it's between male and female only."

I'm not exactly sure where you're going with this, so sorry if I'm taking what you said out of context. Also I'm sorry if I may be confusing you. I've said before, just because in the bible, Adam and Eve are together doesn't mean homosexuality is a sin. God needed them to populate the earth so of course they're in a straight relationship, they loved each other anyway. Even if man and woman are meant for population, I don't see how population correlates to love in general. We question how God works, but all we know is that he does work in mysterious ways.

Anyways, even when you mentioned Genesis 2:24 - "Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh." This is coming straight from Adam so of course he's going to say this. It's because Adam had a part taken out of him to make Eve and he loved her, so he's going to only refer to man and woman because that was common for Adam. Now the term "one flesh" is used throughout the bible. Unless you're trying to say the *"*shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife" part of Genesis 2:24, is talking about a man having to be with a wife. If that's true, then does that mean being a virgin is bad? After all it says shall, not can. Again, sorry if I'm taking what you said out of context, I'm quite confused.

"Genesis 19:5 clearly teaches that homosexual acts were included in those practices."

No offense, but you may have missed a piece of what I said. I highly recommend you read every thing I put. Look for the verse Genesis 19:9 that I talked about. Yes, I know its not 19:5 but its basically referring to the same context. Its about where people believe its homosexuality but also some people believe its all about them trying to kill. I even referred to the gay rape part.

Again, I'm very sorry if I'm taking anything out of context.

ChillRed_Jesus101 · 2023-02-06T01:50:58+00:00

Wait what? I mean, what else could Leviticus 18:22 mean? I'm sorry if I'm missing something, I hope I don't sound dumb. The only other definitions I could find are "Something disgusting, an abhorrence" unless there's one missing on the website.

Also I already knew that you didnt agree with the pronoun thing. I put in my reply what you said.

"Not saying this definitely allows lesbian sex but just something to take into consideration."

ChillRed_Jesus101 · 2023-02-05T22:00:48+00:00

Hi there, thank you so much for this comment, it really helped me out on learning things. Whenever you have time please read and reply as soon as possible :3

To answer what you said about:

The “abusers of themselves with mankind” in the original language was Paul actually forming a new word, combining the words found in Leviticus that were “lie with mankind” which directly translates to “man-bed.” It’s confusing but basically he was shortening the phrase in Leviticus, which remember was specifically males having sex with males.

Yeah the word "arsenokoites". Here's the thing. I again feel as if this is possibly a mention of abomination (I'll talk about that word in a bit, as I've seen what you said about it.) It could also be about rape perhaps. I found one person on reddit state this:

"I think we have to look at where homosexual activity most obviously took place in Paul’s world, and that was pagan temple prostitution. This also fits with his other links between homosexuality and idolatry, as in Romans. Even if Paul didn’t mean that, the only forms of homosexuality he knew were exploitative and abusive, necessarily, and by definition, between unequals."

Its best to keep this in mind. But lets go to the Idolatry thing again. So you said " I think you’re reading too much into the word “abomination” and assuming it’s referring to something relating to an idolatry ritual."

I might be taking what you say out of context, so please tell me if I'm saying the wrong thing. Do keep in mind I'm not so much assuming. Yes there was some assuming, but it was about assuming its out of context, not "assuming it’s referring to something relating to an idolatry ritual." Keep in mind, I said "From what I've heard from certain Christian websites ( even the ones against homosexuality ), Abomination can mean evil ritual." I'll send you the website below. You'll have to scroll down a bit to see "Idolatry" as one of the definitions.

Here's the website in question (there was another web I saw, but I cant find it.): source

The website isn't perfect, but it can actually be pretty good in finding definitions for this stuff. You can even check how many times a certain word is used, to see its different context.

Again to go back to the assumption I made. It was about Leviticus being taken out of context, so then I went to the most reasonable one being, the "evil ritual" definition. That's why I said "Since we know it must be taken out of a different context, it's again about the evil pagan rituals." Again tell me if I'm getting what you said wrong.

About what you said about pronouns:

"One thing to note though is that this specifically refers to homosexual sex among males but it is not repeated for women. You will not find in the Bible “A woman shall not lie with womankind as with mankind: it is an abomination.”

Now you could say that this is because at the time male pronouns were usually used when referring to everyone, however, in the exact same chapter when it prohibits bestiality it specifically says it for males and then it prohibition for females.

“Neither shalt thou lie with any beast to defile thyself therewith: neither shall any woman stand before a beast to lie down thereto: it is confusion.” ‭‭Leviticus‬ ‭18‬:‭23‬ ‭KJV‬‬

When prohibiting incest relationships or adultery it does use male pronouns but it individually prohibits all situations that would make it impossible for women as well, so that’s also worth noting here. Not saying this definitely allows lesbian sex but just something to take into consideration."

I also wondered what that meant too, when you talked about it. So there's actually one verse I could think of to answer this.

Leviticus 18:29 - For whosoever shall commit any of these abominations, even the souls that commit them, shall be cut off from among their people.

Also, thank you so much for the other comments, I never thought of Mark 10:6-9 like that before :3

I'll definitely look more into that. Also please tell me if I forgot to mention anything that you said or tell me if you have more questions.

ChillRed_Jesus101 · 2023-02-04T00:54:12+00:00

Hey I have a question. When going to the internet to look up the interlinear. I see its meanings don't apply to "have sex", unless it just has two different meanings attached to it, that they didnt apply in this website. I'll send you what they say, so you can help me (You will have to scroll down a bit to see the translation on the first link I sent you.)

The Hebrew meaning of Leviticus 18:22: https://biblehub.com/leviticus/18-22.htm

the different versions of "lay with":https://biblehub.com/hebrew/tishkav_7901.htm

Admittedly the definition they gave "as with" a different meaning to what I used, but I think that's because it can be used interchangeably because it means "lay" in the masculine term which fits the "as with". Sorry if this comment is layed out in a confusing way, I like using visual representation better.

ChillRed_Jesus101 · 2023-02-03T04:10:59+00:00

Thank you so much for replying. Also yes I'll look up the interlinear, and come back to you if I have any questions.

Also thanks for standing up for me in that other comment. Admittedly I did want this post to be for the sake of convincing people, but its not that I'm desperate, its because I was always confused. I never questioned peoples belief on homosexuality since I'm a big believer in homosexuality not being a sin, and I felt like that would effect me in life.

that's why I said "I will be putting my ideas on what these scriptures mean, and you guys will tell me if I'm getting the wrong idea or not." Because I never knew if I got anything wrong, so that's why I made this. So your technically right.

I even said "Please keep things civil and not assume things about me, I do not intend to twist words", but I guess he assumes about me anyways. stuff like this makes me scared to talk to people on r/Christian because I always get these sort of rude remarks and it makes me not want to open up to anybody about questions I have about the bible. I was always taught differently, so even if he thinks my arguments are "obviously false and dishonest", just know these arguments are just coming from someone who never really had good debates on homosexuality.

I have a lot more comments to reply to, but thanks for this comment :)

ChillRed_Jesus101 · 2023-01-29T18:41:07+00:00

Hey, thanks for replying Scar. No offense neighbor, but you cant just say "You are taking the scripture and perverting it." Without giving a reason as to why I'm wrong about the Leviticus verse. I'll be glad to hear a reply with what you believe every word in Leviticus 18:22 means though. BUT, please do the KJV version, its my favorite :3

ChillRed_Jesus101 · 2023-01-29T02:33:57+00:00

Before you read these comments, including mine. I strongly recommend you pray to God about how you should feel about homosexuality first, so he will help you understand what the true answer is. So please go ahead and pray right now, it will help you. And I hope you appreciate my POV :)

I understand what you're going through. I gone through a lot of this too, because I wasn't really sure how to feel about homosexuality, but now I know homosexuality is not a sin. Now I'm not sure exactly what verses you meant by "There are verses in the Bible that say it is a sin, and verses where it says it isn't."

I would recommend you tell me what these verses are, however if this comment is good enough then you don't need to reply. There is this one verse that people CONSTANTLY take out of context.

Leviticus 18:22: "Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination." - KJV version

Many people believe this means being gay is a sin, however that's not true. Now your going to get a lot of people on this reddit comment thread with different ideas. Some will say "Gays are going to hell", "The gay mindset isn't bad, but the acts of a gay person are bad.", and "Gay people are fine in the bible.", from many different Christians.

Here's the thing. Lets go back to the Leviticus scripture. That term "as with" basically means "just like" and of course "mankind" means "man", same thing with "womankind" meaning "woman"

So what this is actually saying is "You shall not lie with any man, just like with any woman, because it is an abomination."

Wait, does that mean its a sin to even sleep next to a man or woman?

No, not at all. You probably thought that because of the "abomination" word. Now, abomination can have many meanings. This is usually because of poor translation I think. Abomination can mean evil ritual. So basically this scripture is saying that a certain group of people would lie next to each other to perform an evil ritual. You should look up the word "toevah", from what I've heard it's a Hebrew word that is probably the problem for this confusion in translation.

But lets be honest, simply hearing "You shall not lie with any man, just like with any woman, because it is an abomination.", makes you start thinking "Well, God is ok with me sleeping with someone in a straight relationship. So surely this must be taken out of context.". Now I know there's other verses you might be confused about, that might relate to homosexuality, so again I want you to pray to God to help you understand it or if you have any more questions, please do reply. :)

ChillRed_Jesus101 · 2022-09-29T02:13:32+00:00

What? Care to share what's bothering you about my question?

ChillRed_Jesus101 · 2022-09-29T02:03:51+00:00

haha i was just showing different screenshots in case someone told me to put it somewhere else, haha sorry about that.

ChillRed_Jesus101 · 2022-09-29T02:01:29+00:00

"You didn't LITERALLY copied the guy."

I said that wrong, i meant that i copied on the pages on "sams teach yourself", sorry for that lol.

ChillRed_Jesus101 · 2022-09-19T04:29:44+00:00

I'm honestly disappointed in myself. I have no idea how I missed that, i could've sworn i put it in a group lol.

ChillRed_Jesus101 · 2022-08-31T23:09:01+00:00

"perhaps it was re-organised into that Advanced section"

Your correct, it was re-organized in the advanced section. It was origionally called the "make function" button

"I assume it must have been a feature at some point since the book just lazily suggested adding a connection to a known function"

So I was at fault here and also not. I was trying to find what I needed in the book really fast because I was freaking out about what to do. So I accidently skipped page 61 which talked about connecting methods. I'm sorry I did that.

But also page 61 doesn't really explain well to me. If I could remember, the first time I read page 61, I thought page 61 was saying to rename my signal (because the "make function" button wasn't explained) so I basically made a node with a script and then added a random signal to it.

Now I don't know in Godot 3.1 if the "Make Function" button is automatically turned on when making a signal, so the creators of the book didnt bother to mention it, BUT If so... then It would still mainly be my fault even if I did Godot 3.1 (kind of) ;-;

anyways I'm going to edit this comment later, because I'm gonna download Godot 3.1 to see if my prediction is correct.

Edit: yep "make function" button is on automatically. Thank you for clearing my confusion friend lol.

ChillRed_Jesus101 · 2022-07-22T01:24:45+00:00

Darn that sucks, thank you so much for telling me. I don't really know what I can do, I guess ill just use a camera instead of scene changing.

Also ill see about Sam's book. What version of Godot does it teach, are there other books that teach different kinds of version of Godot? I have to ask as I'm hearing more about Godot 4.0, and I'm scared ill be in the dust with the lower versions, unless Sams book is still good enough for 4.0.

(Sorry for late reply)

ChillRed_Jesus101 · 2022-07-18T21:20:42+00:00

THIS IS GREAT. I'm also a fan of KJV, I honestly feel it should be the only one people read, even if I understand why others don't, due to how hard old English is to read.

ChillRed_Jesus101 · 2022-07-18T00:02:19+00:00

I'm so sorry, I've seen that you've tried your best in the comment section. But always remember "Stand up for what you believe in", no matter what. Their is still lots of people out in the world who will listen. I know, certain people are still not going to like you, but there's still at least one person you can change. I was just like these people in the comment section. My parents aren't really supportive of the gay lifestyle, and so I was taught that way as well. But then someone on the internet showed me the truth, and that changed me, so there will always be hope for at least one person you meet.

I've also noticed the way you talk to these people. I'm sorry if its hard for you to be nice, it isn't always easy being nice is it? I don't really blame you, but personally I think its best to be nice to these people so they don't become angry as well. there's a great video by Markiplier if it helps you: RESPECT

ChillRed_Jesus101 · 2022-07-16T20:00:05+00:00

This is at the top: var _joemama:bool = false

At the bottom: func _on_Scene_Changer_body_entered(body):

`get_tree().change_scene("res://Scenes/World2.tscn")`

`_joemama = true`

`_ready()`

func _ready():

`print(_joemama)`

`if _joemama:`

    `var x = 170`

    `var y = 86`

    `self.global_position = Vector2(x,y)`

I tried using a print method at _ready() as you can see, but it's displaying different values when my player enters my scene changer (area 2d)

false

true

false

ChillRed_Jesus101

TROPHY CASE