Homosexuality is NOT the ONLY “Abomination”

If you’re like most people, you probably have never read the entire Bible. Or much of it at all. You might have read a few verses from your coworkers inspirational coffee cup, like that one about God lifting us up on wings like eagles’, or you may have heard about a verse that says women are supposed to be servants of their husbands from some feminist who can’t actually quote that verse from memory, but knows she hates it and by extension the church in general. One phrase you may have heard in past years, even if not the actual context, is the idea that in the Bible God calls Homosexuals an Abomination.Related image

That sounds kind of harsh, doesn’t it? I mean, homosexuals are PEOPLE, darn it! They reserve respect too! And I totally agree. Oh, but wait…

The Bible doesn’t say that Homosexuals are an Abomination.

What it does say, in Leviticus 18:22 is “You [men of Israel] shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination.” This verse is not condemning people, or even necessarily the feelings of same sex attraction, but instead the ACT of homosexual sex. IT is, according to this verse, “an abomination.”

Because of the use of the word “Abomination,” people on both sides of the isle have gotten the idea that homosexuality is the WORSE SIN there is. But a little searching through the Bible shows that there are OTHER “Abominations.” Here’s a list of them from the book of Proverbs, ch 6:

16  There are six things that the Lord hates,
    seven that are an abomination to him:
17 haughty eyes, a lying tongue,
    and hands that shed innocent blood,
18 a heart that devises wicked plans,
    feet that make haste to run to evil,
19 a false witness who breathes out lies,
    and one who sows discord among brothers.

Did you read that last one? Talking smack/feeding the trolls/bringing the drama so people don’t get along is an ABOMINATION. No one is being accused of being INHUMAN or SUBHUMAN. They are being told that some behaviors- CHOICES TO ACT IN A PARTICULAR WAY- are unacceptable and, in the parlance of our day, “Really Gross.” Because that is essentially what Abomination means. More or less.

Also, and this is a key point, that verse in Leviticus does NOT say “You shall not LOVE another male.” In John 13:34 Jesus COMMANDS his all male squad of disciples, ” Love one another.”

What is COMMANDED is to love.

What is FORBIDDEN is sex with anyone but your hetero-life-mate in the bonds of marriage. The only reason our culture is trying to defend perverted sex acts under the name of “Love” is because we have, culturally speaking, forgotten that LOVE is more than FEELINGS. Between Hollywood movies and pornography, there are a lot of people who don’t understand love or sex and have decided they must be one and the same (And also that both are a form of selfishness). And maybe it’s just a coincidence that so many of the men in Hollywood are being accused of “Sexual Misconduct” and that the average Hollywood marriage lasts for less time than it takes to rent a movie from RedBox.

But maybe it’s not.

The take away here is not, “Homosexuality isn’t so bad!” It’s ALL sins are bad. There are MANY evil things which God has told us are TOTES GRODY TO THE MAX*. We need to get not only our morality and ideas about marriage and sex from the Bible, but also our definition of love. Because for 100% of the people we meet, God commands us to love them. But for 100% of the people we meet who are not our hetero spouse- God commands you to keep your hands to yourself.

So paint that onto a coffee mug or email it to a feminist. You’ll be glad you did.


*From The Message Bible translation

This entry was posted in Philosophy, SocioPolitico and tagged , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

24 Responses to Homosexuality is NOT the ONLY “Abomination”

  1. LOL! “Totes grody to the max,” well done.


  2. j.R. says:

    Jesus loves you, unless you have sex with someone of the same sex


    • Hey JR, it’s like you didn’t read the post you are commenting under. Because, what you said is entirely wrong. Jesus loves sinners, or he would love no one. See, there aren’t good people and bad people, there are bad people and Jesus. Are you Jesus? No? Then you’re a bad person. Jesus loves you and offers forgiveness for free, but you have to accept it. Check out John 3:16 for details.
      And Happy New Year.


  3. Alexander Patterson says:

    Biblical marriage: one man, and one woman. Or two women. Or three women. Or one man, one woman, one female slave. One adult man and one 11-13 year old girl.

    Or one man and his sister. Or one King, 700 wives and 300 concubines. One man, and one non- virgin woman. Oh wait. You would have to stone her to death if she wasn’t a virgin.

    Women were also the property of the man. If you think it’s one man and one woman you haven’t read the Bible.


    • Actually, Alexander, if you think the Bible teaches that marriage SHOULD be one king and 700 wives and concubines, then you simply haven’t understood the Bible, even if you have read it.
      And frankly, I don’t appreciate your tone. You can at least say “Good day to you sir” before you get all sarcastic.
      But I digress.
      Look, the Bible DESCRIBES a lot of things it doesn’t PRESCRIBE. Just because something was done doesn’t mean it is what God wants His people to do, and even if a certain action isn’t overtly condemned in some kind of Sunday School/After School Special format, that still doesn’t mean the Bible is FOR that particular action. Sometimes it takes a little more effort to understand what parts of the Bible we are intended to model our lives after than simply opening it up and seeing what a particular verse says. Otherwise Matthew 27:5 is going to cause quite a pickle.


      • Alexander Patterson says:

        You are very curt in your YouTube responses. So I’m only matching your tone.

        But you make a fair point. God in The Bible doesn’t command men to have hundreds of wives the way He commands people to throw rocks at homosexuals until they die of blunt force trauma.

        Of course, God doesn’t command against multiple wives or incest either. And he could have – he commanded not to boil a goat in its mothers milk. The Mosaic law said that a rape victim can be forced to marry her rapist (after he pays her father of course, you pop it you buy it).

        His silence says a lot. Your argument that the Bible describes polygamy but doesn’t promote it, as in God was dealing with the society as it was … I’ve heard the same argument used as apologetics for Biblical slavery.


      • Oh, yeah, right. Like I’M Sarcastic!
        Hmmm… now that I’m thinking about it…
        Good day to you Alexander.
        Anyway, I get your gist Alexander, and I don’t blame you for having this view as it is terribly popular on the internet (much like the Flat earth model and cats riding Rumbas), but the fact remains that you have a somewhat overly simplistic view of the Bible. First, you’re dealing with only the English version, which doesn’t carry the nuances or differing meanings of the original Hebrew or Greek. As one example you brought up, the words we translate “slave” carry a variety of meanings which would include butlers- so, you’d be accusing Bruce Wayne of being a slaver- not to mention the entire cast of “The Fresh Prince of Bel-Air”. The word translated “Rape” – (even in old English uses), didn’t always carry the same meaning as today’s use of the word, just as references to slavery rarely meant what we think of in modern America. Some usages would include seduction of a virgin. This is why some rapists are order to be killed and others are ordered to marry the girl. Like with the slavery passages, you are using a modern English word to fill in for an ancient Hebrew or Greek word with your modern contextual baggage which the authors of those passages did not have. You need to understand the writings according to their original meaning and cultural context, just as you would the works of Shakespeare. For a bit more on this, check out: https://www.gotquestions.org/Bible-rape.html

        And let’s discuss the stoning of homosexuals. Like many people, I’m sure you choose this and the passages on slavery with which to condemn the Bible as “immoral.” You don’t actually say as much here, but it seems implied- correct me if I am wrong. But on what grounds can you judge the Bible? Because you don’t LIKE what it says? Because it doesn’t make YOU HAPPY? Or do you imagine there is some foundation for absolute morality outside of the Bible which you can use to measure it? Because there is none. YOU cannot judge God any more than you can condemn the speed limit on the roads near your house. You can DISLIKE it, but you have no right, no authority to pass judgement. The authority is OVER you. You can choose to break the law, you can FEEL like you want a different law, but you have no right to judge the law.

        And have you even considered the cultural context of the command? In Islam one is commanded to murder homosexuals merely for being homosexuals, just as they are commanded to kill Jews for being Jewish, or former Muslims for leaving Islam anywhere in the world. The command to stone homosexuals was within the context of the nation state of Israel, pertaining to those people who lived as self-professing Jews. God does not command them to hunt down and kill homosexuals in other countries. He is establishing a unique culture for HIS people, which includes the command not to boil a goat in its mother’s milk. These rules were to separate them from evil- and homosexuality is very much an evil lifestyle- separate them as unique from other people, as cultural laws pertaining to habits and clothing, protect them from disease, as the kosher laws, and to look forward to the messiah, such as the festivals and temple activities. And the people were free to leave if they didn’t like the rules. Similarly, the church is told in the New Testament to cast out people living a sinful lifestyle, but not to avoid sinners outside of it. There are different rules for those who choose to be part of God’s people and those who choose not to be, even if the moral laws cover everyone. Again, what right do YOU have to condemn the culture God created for HIS people? You have none. You don’t even have the moral foundation by which to condemn rape or slavery. You have only your emotional disdain for them, which is no doubt conditioned by your cultural upbringing and not any kind of actual fact, argument, or logical thought. I hate cats and radishes, but that doesn’t make them evil.

        And finally, you say “His silence says a lot.” I understand what you mean, but you are simply wrong. This is a self centered and illegitimate criticism where in you say, “I Would have said…” and because the Bible does not, you put your own meaning on the silence and put yourself in the place of judgement, and you very simply do not have the right or the authority. You are adding YOUR meaning to silence, and YOUR idea of what YOU would have said, which is speculation at best, and thus your conclusions are invalid. Silence is not a teaching. God does not include a chapter on why polygamy is wrong, but neither does he include a passage encouraging all men to take multiple wives. You are ignoring one silence and focusing on the other. It’s invalid reasoning.

        I suggest you search for good Christian teaching on the Bible to discover what it says and how the original languages and context make clear its intent, and not find your explanations for the Bible from atheists on the internet. It takes more work, but you will get better answers. May I suggest a few resources to start? https://abitoforangeacademy.wordpress.com/
        Enjoy, thank you for your comments, and remember, Jesus Loves You.


  4. Alexander Patterson says:

    Not sure how to reply to the last post.

    Ah, there it is, “you can’t be moral without my specific interpretation of one of the three Abrahamic religions, aka God. And atheists can’t judge biblical atrocities”. A vintage argument. Like classic Coke.

    I’ll respond to the rest of your post soon, but its a lot to cover.

    The NIV say the phrase ‘men who have sex with men’ is translated from two Greek words that refer to passive and active homosexual activity. Not sure why you want to hide behind the translation issue, but in America people read, believe, behave and make laws according to the English versions.


    • What’s up, AP?
      The reason that the moral argument is a classic is because it is both true, and easy to understand. And yet, here you have misunderstood it.
      The argument is not that YOU need MY interpretation of anything to BE moral, but rather, that if God does not exist, moral Laws do not exist, just as on the moon there is no speed limit because there is no government authority to set one. But since morals Laws DO exist, God must therefore exist, just as you know there are local and state governments because there are speed limits on the streets near your house.

      Also- Did you think you had replied to this argument? Not to nit pick, but you make no reply except to call it “vintage.” That’s not an argument against it. You know that, right?

      As for what Americans do- why would you think I am required to look to my fellow Americans to decide what the Bible says and means when I can look to the original language written by the original authors? That would be a step backwards. Hardly something to HID BEHIND as you say, but rather a logical method of discovering what the text says and means.
      Thanks for chiming in.


      • Alexander Patterson says:

        I said that I would reply to your arguments more thoroughly in a future post, which i am currently drafting. Saying that’s my only argument is strawmanning me.

        If Moral laws exist because of God, then that means morality is objective and unchanging. Has morality changed since the 8th century? Are action or orders given by God automatically moral? Was 1 Samuel 15 moral, or has it become immoral today?

        Secular morality is totally valid. And less homophobic.


      • RELAX AP, You left a reply which made it sound like you didn’t understand the argument- because of what you said about it. So… not a Straw Man. That’s on you.
        I await your more detailed reply with eager anticipation.
        And at the risk of being accused of Straw Manning again, I am going to reply to what you said here, because you said it.
        Yes, God’s law is moral and objective and unchanging, as it is based on God’s holy unchanging character.
        No, morality has not changed since the 8th century. That’s an odd century to pick out of all of the others. I’m curious why you picked that one.
        I wouldn’t call 1 Samuel 15 immoral today- I would say it is impossible because all of the Amalekites are dead. So… we can’t kill them again.

        Secular morality CANNOT be valid- because it cannot exit. And homophobia isn’t a thing. It doesn’t exist either. It’s like hate speech or global warming- its one of the silly lies sold to you by CNN and the drug addicts teaching at UC Berkley.
        But I guess I’ll wait for the full essay to say more.


      • Alexander Patterson says:

        I think you may be the one who missed what I wa saying. I’m not saying the KJV is an accurate translation (which is just another argument against the Bible being innerant), but that’s what affects other people. Conservative Christians Politicians read the English translation.


      • It’s only true that Conservative Christians Politicians read the English translation if they are English speakers. I strongly suspect the ones in France, Spain, South America, Africa, etc. read other translations. But again, so what? I’m not basing what I believe on what English speaking politicians think. Why are you?

        And if you think errors in the KJV shows the Bible is not inerrant, then you simply fail to understand the doctrine of Biblical inerrancy. Maybe look into that before you take to the internet to explain to people why its wrong. I don’t want to tell you how to do your job, but I find it worth the time to figure out what an idea is before I go telling other people why it’s wrong.
        But again, I’ll wait for your coming essay. Take your time. I’m willing to wait.


  5. Alexander Patterson says:

    Wow, you are so blatantly disingenuous.

    I was talking about American politicians. That’s the country I live in, so it affects me. And same sex couples, and transgender people who want the same rights you have.


    • My dear Alex… wait a minute!
      I’ve just realized I can sing your name to the same tune as “Alexander Hamilton!” OOh. Now I have name envy. My name is unsingable. But I digress.

      I don’t see why you need to be rude, when YOU are the one suggesting that I look to POLITICIANS to understand what the Bible teaches, instead of learning what the Bible SAYS.
      I hardly think that using a logical methodology of literary criticism makes me “disingenuous”. You may as well look to the fans of Baz Luhrmann’s 1996 Romeo and Juliet instead of looking into the English of Shakespeare’s day if that’s how you are going to decide what a text means.

      Allow me to remind you. YOU Said, “Not sure why you want to hide behind the translation issue, but in America people read, believe, behave and make laws according to the English versions.” And unless I miss your point, you are trying to make some argument from what American politicians think about their chosen English translation, and are accusing me of being disingenuous because I choose to look into the actual TEXT of the Bible to decide what it means. I don’t see by what right you are calling me names and acting like its me who is trying to drastically change the subject away from the article you are responding to, or any of the many good questions I have asked in the old comments section here.

      And what rights do sodomites or cross dressers not have that I have? They already have equal standing under the law. They always have for my own lifetime and yours as well I imagine. Now it is YOU who is being disingenuous.
      But again, I shall wait for your upcoming essay. I hope it has less name calling and more making logical points than some of these shorter comments.


  6. Alexander Patterson says:

    You’ve misrepresented litterally everything I’ve put forward. I did not say that you should look to politicians to interpret scripture.

    I’m not going to bother reading the rest of your comment, I don’t see any point in responding when you just going to straw man everything I say.


  7. Alexander Patterson says:

    Wow. Sodomites and cross dressers. Way to love your neighbor, dude.

    I have an unrelated question.

    When you responded to Professer Stick, you asked for a beneficial mutation that added information to the genome. In his reply, he gave two examples he thought qualified. Apo-A1 Milano and TRIM-CypA.

    Why did you edit one out?


    • Alex, Homie,
      Sarcasm is really not your gift. But if I may say so, calling something what it is doesn’t count as hate. There is nothing unloving about calling a sodomite a sodomite. The fact that you have responded as if it is a term of hate shows that you have a disdain for the sexual perversity to which the term refers. That is your disdain you are replying to, not mine. It’s safe to admit that here. This is a safe space.
      I was once called a racist for calling men from Mexico, “Mexicans” but the fact is, people from Mexico are Mexicans. It’s not a term of judgement or hate, it’s just the label which indicates their country of origin. Dude.

      And while I don’t want to sidetrack you while you write your much awaited essay by discussing the good professor, I must ask- what is different enough about the two examples that my answer did not suffice for both? In the first I showed that he came from a point of astounding ignorance, not knowing proteins from genes, not understanding what an increase in genetic information means, and calling an evolutionary story an “observation” when it was alleged to have happened perhaps 40 MILLION years ago. It’s been a while, so I don’t recall the specifics of both, but were they different enough that the second example would have warranted a different answer?


      • Alexander Patterson says:

        Stop calling me a sodomite, please.

        You complain about this being “observed” 40 million years ago.. He gave two examples but you only responded to that one. The other example (that you left out of your video) he gave was a mutation (ApoA-1 Milano) that happened so recently, we know the name of the person who had it. His name was Giovanni Pomarelli. He lived just before the 19th century.
        You then scoff at him saying that beneficial mutations do occur, and proceed to ask why he hadn’t given any examples of one. Except he did, but you edited it out of your response video.


      • Greetings again, Alex… wow, this is kind of all over the place. I guess I’ll try and do this by the numbers:
        1. I didn’t call you anything, but if you are a man who has sex with other men, you are a Sodomite. It’s a simple matter of definition. That’s what the word means. It’s also a useful distinction because the Leftists like to pretend the issue of Homosexuality is one of love, when it is not. I mean, the word “Sexuality” is right there in the label. Also, Jesus commanded his disciples to love one another, so there is nothing in the Bible against men loving other men, but men are forbidden from having sex with other men, their own mothers, sisters, and livestock.
        2. mutation (ApoA-1 Milano) eh? fine, I’ll Google it….wait a minute… You’re referencing a gene mutation which you are claiming occurred in the.. let’s see, JUST BEFORE the 19th century, which is the 1800s… late 1700s? Ok, first of all, gene sequencing wasn’t developed until the 1970s, and even then it was SLOW and expensive, so this gene was not actually OBSERVED At all until at earliest the 1990s. And sure, while we can identify the common ancestor of the people with this gene, how do we know HIS parents didn’t carry it? This is speculation not based on observation and from more than 200 years before gene sequencing made any of this information actually accessible.
        Also, if I remember, this example is like several others which get passed around the internet by evolutionists desperate to find an example of a mutation that does something other than immediately kill us. This mutation, just like all the others, is beneficial only if you ignore the harm it does. “It decreases risk of heart disease, such as atherosclerosis, which is a significant positive. However, it also increases risk of other bad things happening to the body, such as gallstones and strokes.” (https://inhisimage.blog/2018/04/07/apoa-1-milano/_).
        So I probably ignored it because it didn’t matter, didn’t prove his point, and I didn’t want to make my video any longer than it needed to be.
        In short, a beneficial mutation that can cause gallstones and strokes isn’t REALLY beneficial. Evolution needs new genetic information which is beneficial and DOESN’T also kill you.
        Also also, what evolution requires is a series of mutations to create new genetic information that did not previously exist. This isn’t it.


  8. Alexander Patterson says:

    I’m not going to Finish writing the response that I was going to post.Youre not worth my time if you’re going be dishonest and misrepresent everything I say
    And you’re going to hide behind jokes, and you’re going to ue fallacious arguments, and you fail again, you’re going to resort to name-calling. This is why your YouTube channels hasn’t broken 400 subscribers.

    And you’re right about the Amalakites. All of those men, women, children and infants are dead, just like your loving God ordered. Those babies have already been sliced open with swords.


    • Imagine my surprise that this essay which was going to debunk me once and for all isn’t going to happen. And imagine my surprise AGAIN when I am told that the reason you are not going to present a logical case against any position I have ever presented is because of my personality defects or annoying sense of humor.

      Surely it isn’t because MY position is logical and true. No, it’s no doubt EASILY debunked, after all, you did use the phrase “fallacious arguments” and I am sure that you have good reasons to say so, even though you’ve presented none, but I am not “worth your time” and thus, though I could have been shown the error of my ways, alas, I am unworthy of being educated. Once again, it’s not because logical refutation of my position doesn’t exist- it totally does- but it SHOULD not be shared with me because… I’m not funny enough. Or something.

      At least now the Spartan Atheist won’t feel so alone. Here’s HIS list of excuses:

      “there are very good arguments against your religious beliefs… elsewhere”
      “…you dont have the maturity for me to engage in this conversation”
      “I’m not in the mood to explain, and I know you refuse to learn.”
      “..your understanding of a great many things are superficial.”
      “See, this is why I’m not going to answer you.”
      “I’m not gonna spend all day petting your ego or your shoulders to placate all of your insecurities. ”
      “You are therefore too morally immature for me to discuss morality.”
      “We can’t try for understanding if you change the subject multiple times without acknowledging my points.”
      “you seem to like to mix and mash definitions and words when it suits you instead of being honest.”
      “…you lie for a living..”
      “..you are lying..”
      “..your arguments not as logical, or backed up by any evidence, but as the speculative, dishonest, twisted lies served in rapid succession as to confuse instead of educate.”
      “I can address all of these issues, but…”
      “I’m not going to waste a whole lot more time on you (again) as you change the subject and do your best to ignore what I say. I’m not going to get into the “why” when you refuse to even acknowledge what I believe.”
      “I answered exactly one of your questions so far, and you just won’t accept it. Why on earth would I want to answer them all?”

      You’re in good company. I can only hope that SOMEDAY I will be met by an atheist who can tolerate me long enough to explain why I am wrong.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s