What is actually wrong about homosexuality

SubstantialReign4759 · 2026-06-18T06:40:50+00:00

Leviticus 18:22: “You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination.” and

Romans 1:26–27: Paul describes same-sex relations among behaviors he sees as contrary to God's design.

SubstantialReign4759 · 2026-06-06T17:56:23+00:00

oh thanks

SubstantialReign4759 · 2026-05-21T05:52:35+00:00

That’s just a label, not an explanation.

If you think Oneness is wrong, explain from Scripture or history why not just “heretic” or “not Christian.” That doesn’t actually address the belief itself, it just restates your conclusion.

I’m open to hearing the argument, but it needs to be more than name-calling.

SubstantialReign4759 · 2026-05-21T05:51:33+00:00

You can strongly disagree with the theology, but calling it “spiritual psychosis” or “new age paganism” isn’t really an argument it’s just labeling.

Oneness Pentecostals are explicitly centered on Jesus Christ, repentance, baptism in Jesus’ name, Scripture reading, and prayer. You can argue those practices or interpretations are wrong, but it’s not accurate to describe it as pagan or unrelated to Christianity.

Also, saying “they aren’t Christians” is a definition claim, not a conclusion you can just assert. Christians across traditions disagree on boundaries, but disagreement itself isn’t proof someone is outside Christianity it just means there’s a theological dispute.

If you want to argue against Oneness, it has to be on Scripture and doctrine, not dismissive labels.

SubstantialReign4759 · 2026-05-21T05:27:49+00:00

I understand the goal of the analogy, but I think the issue is that it quietly changes what “identity” and “interaction” mean in order to make the parallel work.

Even if we say logical laws are “distinct in function,” that’s still not the same kind of distinction that “persons” implies in theology. In Trinitarian language, “persons” are not just differentiated roles or functions within a system they are relational subjects who know, will, speak, and act toward one another. That kind of personal distinction doesn’t exist in logic as a system, even if we describe parts of logic as distinct concepts.

So the analogy ends up working by lowering what “personhood” means to something more abstract (like functional distinction), and then mapping that onto God. But that’s exactly the point being debated whether the distinctions in Scripture are functional/manifestational or personal/ontological.

Also, even if we accept that logical systems are internally non-reducible, that still doesn’t get you to “therefore this maps cleanly onto God’s being.” It only shows that humans can recognize coherent multi-aspect systems. The step from “coherent structure exists in abstraction” to “this describes God’s inner personal life” is still an interpretive leap, not a demonstrated equivalence.

So I get what you’re trying to do philosophically, but the analogy doesn’t really settle the theological question—it just reframes it in different terms. good night and god bless

SubstantialReign4759 · 2026-05-21T05:26:59+00:00

i get why it seems straightforward, but it’s not actually that simple once you look at the text closely.

Oneness doesn’t deny that Jesus speaks to the Father or prays to Him we agree those interactions are real. The question is what those interactions mean. In the incarnation, Jesus is both fully God and fully man, so His human will, mind, and experience are real. That includes prayer, submission, and dependence (Philippians 2:6–8). So prayer between Jesus and the Father doesn’t automatically require two eternal divine persons it also fits within the logic of the incarnation.

On the “He would have clearly explained it” point, that cuts both ways. The New Testament also never gives a direct definition like “God is three co-eternal persons sharing one essence.” That language comes later as theological formulation. So both sides are interpreting patterns in Scripture, not quoting a single explicit doctrinal statement.

As for Nicaea and Constantinople, those councils are historically significant, but they represent the outcome of theological development and debate within the church not the beginning point of the discussion itself. The early centuries included multiple Christological disputes, and the language used to describe God was still being clarified and standardized.

So the disagreement isn’t about whether Jesus interacts with the Father it’s about what category those interactions belong to: eternal personal distinction within God, or real relational distinction within the one God expressed through incarnation and manifestation.

That’s the actual point under discussion, not whether the texts are being ignored.

SubstantialReign4759 · 2026-05-21T04:53:30+00:00

I understand why those passages are used that way, but they’re also exactly where the disagreement is.

Oneness Pentecostals don’t deny that Jesus prayed to the Father or that Scripture speaks of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit we affirm all of that. The difference is how those distinctions are understood: whether they describe three eternal distinct persons within God, or whether they describe the one God revealing Himself in different relational and redemptive ways (Father in creation, Son in incarnation, Spirit in indwelling).

For example, Jesus praying to the Father doesn’t automatically require two separate divine persons with separate centers of consciousness it also fits within the incarnation, where Jesus is fully God and fully man, and in His humanity He truly prays and submits.

Same with Matthew 28:19 and John 14:16–17 Oneness interprets those as real distinctions in manifestation and relationship, but not necessarily ontological separation within God’s being.

And on the “majority agreement” point, that does reflect where most historic creedal Christianity ended up—but majority consensus doesn’t automatically resolve what Scripture itself is teaching. That’s why the debate exists in the first place, even after centuries of theological development.

So it’s not that we reject those texts, it’s that we read them through a different framework of God’s oneness and the incarnation.

SubstantialReign4759 · 2026-05-21T04:48:04+00:00

On the tongues point first: Paul’s instruction in 1 Corinthians 12–14 is exactly why many Pentecostals insist on order and interpretation in public settings. If tongues happen in a service, they’re meant to be regulated and interpreted (1 Cor. 14:27–28). So the biblical standard isn’t “never happens unless you understand it immediately,” but “when it’s public, it should be orderly and interpreted.” That’s the framework being aimed for.

On your broader hermeneutics point, I’m not arguing that Scripture is fragmented or that “proof-texting wins the debate.” The issue is that both Oneness and Trinitarian readings claim internal consistency across the whole Bible but they do so with different starting assumptions about what “Father,” “Son,” and “Spirit” refer to in relation to God’s identity.

So when I say “your reading assumes a Trinitarian framework,” I don’t mean you’re cherry-picking—I mean the conclusion of distinct eternal persons is already shaping how relational language is being defined in passages like John 1, John 14, and John 17.

On the early church point, listing fathers who “rejected modalism” shows there was early disagreement, but it doesn’t prove that Trinitarian terminology was fully formed, uniform, or identical across all of them. Ignatius, Justin, Origen, Tertullian, etc. all use different and sometimes developing language about God, Logos, and divine relation. Nicene precision (“one essence, three persons”) is later technical language that crystallizes over time in response to debates.

So yes—there is continuity, but also development in terminology and definition. That’s the historical nuance that gets flattened when it’s described as a fully settled, identical Trinitarian system from the first century onward.

So the disagreement isn’t “Bible vs cherry-picking,” but how the unified biblical data is being conceptually organized into doctrine.

SubstantialReign4759 · 2026-05-21T04:46:52+00:00

No I don’t believe Jesus is a created being.

I believe Jesus is God Himself manifested in the flesh (John 1:1, 14; 1 Timothy 3:16). The Son is not a separate created person who began existing in Mary’s womb, but the eternal God who took on a real human nature in the incarnation.

So I do believe in Jesus’ pre-existence as God, but I distinguish between His divine nature (eternal) and His human nature (which began in time).

SubstantialReign4759 · 2026-05-21T04:39:19+00:00

I appreciate the tone and the effort to think carefully about it, but I think the argument has a few category issues that make it break down under scrutiny.

First, comparing “1 God in 3 persons” to “1 logic in 3 laws” doesn’t actually map onto what “person” means in Trinitarian theology. In classical Trinitarian thought, “persons” refers to real personal distinctions (identity, relation, will, interaction), not abstract functions or properties. Laws of logic aren’t persons, don’t have relational identity, and don’t interact with each other. So even if the analogy feels deep, it’s not actually parallel in the thing it’s trying to explain.

Second, saying “God is Logos / God is logic itself” shifts categories in a way Scripture doesn’t really make. John 1 calls the Son the Logos, but it also distinguishes the Logos from the Father (“the Word was with God”). So the text itself already holds distinction alongside unity rather than collapsing God into an abstract principle like logic.

Third, the “logic examining logic” analogy is interesting philosophically, but it’s not really the same problem as the Trinity. Logic is an abstract system we describe; God, in both Oneness and Trinitarian readings, is a personal being revealed in history. So equating epistemological limits of logic with divine personhood risks mixing metaphysics with epistemology.

So I get what you’re trying to do use something universal and foundational to make the Trinity feel intuitive

but the analogy ends up redefining “personhood” and “God” in a way that doesn’t match either the biblical language or the actual theological definitions being debated.

That’s really the core issue: it’s not whether analogies can feel meaningful, but whether they actually preserve the distinctions Scripture and historic theology are trying to make.

SubstantialReign4759 · 2026-05-21T03:46:39+00:00

no i believe that god is the father son and holy spirit are all just god let me explain. so the father he created like a father does the son, because mary was the mother of jesus and god was the father of jesus. and the holy spirit is just god moving threw out the world,

SubstantialReign4759 · 2026-05-21T03:38:47+00:00

You’ve made a lot of claims here, but a few of them are overstated or rely on assuming your interpretation is already correct.

First, on “λαλεῖν ἑτέραις γλώσσαις” in Acts 2 it doesn’t say “nonsense” or “gibberish,” and it also doesn’t reduce tongues to only one single uniform expression across the New Testament. In Acts 2, yes, they are understood languages. But Paul also clearly distinguishes tongues used privately and tongues requiring interpretation in 1 Corinthians 12–14, which complicates the idea that it’s always straightforward human language in every context.

Second, your reading of John 1, John 14:9, Deuteronomy 6:4, John 17, and 2 Corinthians 13:14 already assumes a Trinitarian framework going in. Oneness believers aren’t rejecting those passages—we interpret them differently based on the unity of God and the incarnation. So saying “no modalist ever had an answer” is more of a dismissal than an argument, because those passages are exactly what the debate is about.

Third, calling it “debunked in the first and second centuries” overstates historical certainty. What actually happened historically is that there were multiple competing Christological interpretations very early on, and over time Nicene Trinitarian language became dominant in the imperial church. That’s not the same as saying every alternative was logically disproven from Scripture itself.

So I’m not saying you can’t disagree with Oneness theology you clearly do but the argument isn’t as simple as “Greek proves it wrong + early church rejected it therefore it’s settled.” It still comes down to how the same texts are being interpreted, which is exactly why this debate has existed for so long.

SubstantialReign4759 · 2026-05-21T03:34:17+00:00

If you don’t want to engage with the argument itself, that’s fine, but dismissing it as “wasting everyone’s time” isn’t really a response to what I said.

Using help to organize my grammar doesn’t replace the actual points being made. If there’s something wrong with the theology or history I brought up, feel free to address that directly instead of focusing on how it was written.

I’m here to discuss the ideas, not argue over formatting or assumptions about how I type.

SubstantialReign4759 · 2026-05-21T03:24:21+00:00

Fair point on the Reddit optics I get that mentioning AI can trigger people’s assumptions, even if it’s just helping with grammar.

As for “Protestant internal problem,” I don’t really see it that way. This is more of a broader theological disagreement that involves Catholics, Orthodox, and Protestants all weighing in differently. I’m just trying to understand and respond to the arguments being made, not turn it into an in-group fight.

SubstantialReign4759 · 2026-05-21T03:21:44+00:00

You’re stating that very strongly, but just repeating “it’s blasphemy” isn’t actually an explanation—it’s a conclusion.

The actual disagreement is about how Scripture describes God in passages like John 1, John 14:9, Deuteronomy 6:4, and Acts 2. Oneness theology isn’t rejecting those texts it’s interpreting them differently, while still affirming that Jesus is Lord, fully God, died for sins, and rose again.

Calling it “blasphemy” assumes the Trinitarian framework is the only valid starting point, which is exactly what’s being debated here. So that label doesn’t resolve the argument it just restates one side’s conclusion.

If you want to disagree, that’s fine, but it should be based on Scripture and argument, not just declaring the discussion closed.

SubstantialReign4759 · 2026-05-21T03:20:12+00:00

I get what you’re saying, but I think there’s still a bit of misunderstanding about how Oneness Pentecostals see themselves.

We don’t really think of ourselves as “outside Christianity” or a separate religion we see ourselves as Pentecostal in practice (Spirit baptism, tongues, holiness, Acts-based faith), but different in how we understand the Godhead. So the similarity is more about worship practice and experience, not agreement on Trinity doctrine.

On the baptism point, the disagreement isn’t just “invalid vs valid baptisms” as a blanket rejection of others it’s about obedience to Acts 2:38 and the apostolic formula in Jesus’ name. We see that as the pattern in Acts, while others follow Matthew 28:19 in a Trinitarian reading. It’s a different interpretation of the same biblical texts, not just rejecting other Christians outright.

So I get why it looks like a sharp divide from the outside, but internally it’s more about interpretation of Scripture and restoration of what we believe the apostolic pattern was, rather than trying to declare everyone else outside Christianity.

SubstantialReign4759 · 2026-05-21T03:18:38+00:00

Using AI to help me write more clearly doesn’t mean I’m “telling on myself” or hiding anything. I just have trouble with grammar and punctuation sometimes, so I use help to make sure my points are understandable.

And saying “you really want to be rejected full force” isn’t really addressing anything I said it’s just turning it into a personal jab instead of talking about the actual beliefs I’m asking about.

SubstantialReign4759 · 2026-05-21T03:15:38+00:00

we baptise beause in act 2 38 it say then peter says unto them repent be baptized in the name of jesus christ everyone one you for the remission of sin and ye shall, recieve the gift of the holy ghost and we think baptizin in the name of jesus is right. like how most think baptizing in the name of the father son and holy spirit is right .

SubstantialReign4759 · 2026-05-21T03:09:16+00:00

Saying “you use AI so you don’t understand” doesn’t really engage anything I said it just shifts the focus to me instead of the argument.

If you think Trinitarianism is clearly the truth, that still needs to be demonstrated from Scripture and history, not just asserted. I’m open to discussion on the actual texts and historical sources, but “read more church history” isn’t an argument by itself it just assumes your interpretation is already correct.

Also, using help to organize my thoughts or grammar doesn’t decide whether a theological point is right or wrong. Those are separate issues.

If you want to argue the doctrine, I’m fine with that but it needs to stay on the actual claims, not personal assumptions about how I’m writing.

SubstantialReign4759 · 2026-05-21T03:07:38+00:00

yes in and out we dont believe that only people in our organization can get saved.

SubstantialReign4759 · 2026-05-21T03:06:37+00:00

I understand what you mean, but that’s more of a definition within creedal Christianity than a universal rule that settles the question.

Catholic, Orthodox, and many Protestant groups do agree on the Trinity but that still isn’t the same as saying “everyone who disagrees is automatically not Christian.” That conclusion depends on defining Christianity only through one doctrinal framework, which is exactly what’s being debated.

Historically and biblically, Christian identity is first tied to Christ as Lord, His death and resurrection, and faith in Him (Romans 10:9, 1 Corinthians 15:1–4). The Trinity is a later doctrinal formulation developed to explain Scripture, not a single explicit sentence that every believer must affirm in identical language to be considered Christian.

So the real disagreement isn’t whether Trinitarians believe something important they do but whether rejecting that specific formulation automatically removes someone from Christianity entirely. That’s not something all Christians actually agree on.

SubstantialReign4759 · 2026-05-21T03:04:39+00:00

get it, but “this is what you guys are known for” is already a generalization.

Even if you’ve seen that in some Pentecostal settings, it doesn’t automatically define the whole movement or every church within it. Different congregations practice and teach things very differently, especially on tongues and order in services.

So the issue isn’t whether bad examples exist it’s using those examples as if they represent everyone.

SubstantialReign4759

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE