/christian/ - Christian Discussion and Fellowship

The letter of the law kills, but the spirit of the law saves.

Male homosexuality is sinful for reasons that would also make female homosexuality sinful. Hence they're both sinful even if nothing is explicitly said about the latter.

But Romans 1:26 explicitly mentions lesbianism as sinful so I don't know what your point is.

>>667601

Kek

>>667602

Both are equally sinful, though I heard that back in the olden times, male homosexuality was a bigger crime than female homosexuality. Also

>>667596

What are you implying OP, you’re not a lesbian are you?

>>667596

>can someone explain to me what Romans 1:26 is really about?

it's about homosex being categorically sinful whether it's men or women doing it. one mention is really all that's necessary. just because our generation is obsessed with dumb pervy crap doesn't mean holy writ is at fault for not devoting more pages to that obvious disgusting evil behavior

>>667596

>with one possible exception, that is Romans 1:26, that I also often see interpreted to mean anal sex or oral sex being sinful.

It says men with men, women with women. This really doesn't get any more direct about what it means here.

You're probably seeing people interpreting from some corrupt modern version rather than the Authorized version. And the motive is clear, they want to accomodate modern philosophy about sodomy being normal so they start trying to redefine everything to suit that. It's an attack on as many fronts as possible, all working in favor of sodomites. Hence "sodomite" is regularly removed from places like 1 Kings 15:12 and Deuteronomy 23:17 and regularly inserted by the same people into 1 Cor. 6:9 to "normalize" it. We'll be seeing it more and more in the latter times.

But before the 1960's, before the propoganda, all Bible-believers already knew that it was a crime worthy of being removed from society and that these people are recruiters and they are without a single exception after your children, that's how they propogate. Romans 1:24-2:2 also clearly shows this, note how it says these people are full of murder, deceit, haters of God and so on. It's saying that about every sodomite. They of a reprobate mind. That's what Romans 1:26 is really about.

Also interesting about that verse in particular is the fact it says they do that with is against nature. This is the only time anything is qualified as such. Because unless God gives you up to that, no person ever naturally have the desire to consume fecal matter like the sodomites do. It's not even a temptation. And 1 Corinthians 10:13, a great proof text for this, confirms that none of the saved Corinthians ever had this lust that is against nature and "not common to man." Nor did our Lord according to Hebrews 4:15. All points to the fact that sodomites are uniquely separate and reprobate, that it's no accident God gave them up to it.

Also 2 Peter 2:9 (right after talking about Sodom and Gomorrah) states clearly how "The Lord knoweth how to deliver the godly out of temptations." Again, God protecting the non-reprobates from temptations not common to man and that which is "against nature," as Romans 1:26 says. That which we often used to call "the crime against nature" back when people still had an awareness of Scripture.

>>667596

Back in Bible times women didn't just do their own thing. They didn't even live on their own unless they were a widow. They either lived under their father's roof and his rules, or their husband's roof and his rules. So being a lesbian wouldn't even be something that would come up. The man of the house would know what they were up to, they didn't have the opportunity to go lezzing it up. Ergo, no specific law. So you have to just use common sense I guess. What's an incorrect use of sex (same sex relations) for men is also an incorrect use of sex for women.

>>667696

This.

>>668106

And it's only getting worse as the sodomites are allowed access to more children than ever in the history of the world instead of being kept at bay through executions.

>>667596

REAL

WOKE

POST

Those doesn't exist, they're fake terms made up by modernist degenerates.

Sodomy = Bad, okay?

>>668132

Forgot to add, but sodomy is non-penis-in-vagina sex, not just gay buttsex. A handjob is an act of sodomy.

>>667614

This. We've fallen so far that things which were obviously abhorrent to people in ancient times are now discussed as open moral questions today. The Bible warned us that these days would come.

>>667596

When the Bible mentions one gender in a command it means the other as well,

>Thy shall not covet thy neighbors wife

This does not mean that women are free to covet other people's husbands same goes for submission in marriage.

>>668146

Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter! Isaiah 5:20

>>667601

That would fall under thou shalt not steal.

>>667596

Galatians 5:19–21 (KJV 1900): Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are these; Adultery, fornication, uncleanness, *lasciviousness*, Idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, variance, emulations, wrath, strife, seditions, heresies, Envyings, murders, drunkenness, revellings, and such like: of the which I tell you before, as I have also told you in time past, that they which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God.

>>672754

>lasciviousness

"indicating sexual interest or expressive of lust or lewdness"

What does the Bible want us to be, emotionless drones? For the love of might.

>handjobs are a sin, blowjobs are a sin, thinking about sex is a sin, looking at women sexually is a sin

Sex should only be had for the purpose of reproduction? Like a winnie the pooh robot?

I'm trying to be a Christian. I really am trying here.

>>672761

Sex is fine within the context of marriage. "Lust" means sexual desire for someone who is not your spouse.

>>672734

Then with the same reasoning homosexuality of any kind falls under "thou shalt not commit adultery" (which it already does).

>>672754

Lasciviousness. Any wanton, and, according to Jerome, extraordinary form of lust. He adds: “The works of the married even, if not done with delicacy and modesty, as in the sight of God, and if merely for the procreation of children, come under the Apostle’s description of uncleanness and lasciviousness.” This, of course, must be understood of mortal sin; cf., e.g., the act of matrimony is performed otherwise than nature dictates, or if its consummation is purposely prevented; for then both are guilty of mortal sin, excluding them from the Kingdom of heaven. Otherwise lust in the married is only venial.

>>672810

Well Duh, if drawing cartoons is considered sin because is something unrelated to God, obviously any kind of enjoyment not related to God is sin.