Help settle religious/ sex outside marriage debate with colleague ?

[stripyspider]

I have a colleague who , whenever LGBT issues are mentioned, will tell anyone who can listen how he is against "LGBT everything," because of his religious beliefs/ the bible, ( he says he is Christian). The bible says it is wrong, is his standard answer.

The same colleague will boast to anyone who will listen about his many one-night stands/ two timing partners etc, ( "haha I've had to cheat on every relationship I've ever been in.")

I eventually asked him, earlier today, ( subject came up in the office yet again), why he was so bothered about the bible prohibiting gay sex, when he was clearly more than happy to have sex outside of marriage with multiple women ?

He looked at me like I was very stupid, and was like "have you ever read the bible ?" The bible explicitly forbids gay sex, but it never actually says you have to be married to have sex/ bans one night stands !"

And the thing is, he's right. Whilst I have, ( from school), a basic understanding of some bible stories e.g. the good Samaritan, Noah's Ark, tower of babble etc, I've realised I can't really definitively answer this, ( annoying and smug), man on this point.

Does the bible explicitly ban sex outside of marriage in the same way it explicitly prohibits gay sex ?

@loislovesstewie Please see my first post. It's not a case of cherry picking which bits you want to follow, or shouldn't be at least. The law of Moses is summed up in the command to love your neighbour as you love yourself. Saint Paul says that Christians shouldn't be 'led by the flesh', but by the Holy Spirit; "The acts of the flesh are obvious: sexual immorality, impurity and debauchery; idolatry and witchcraft; hatred, discord, jealousy, fits of rage, selfish ambition, dissensions, factions and envy; drunkenness, orgies, and the like. I warn you, as I did before, that those who live like this will not inherit the kingdom of God." Galatians 5:19-21.

Without wishing to offend anyone, 7th Day Adventists hold some opposing views to what some call 'mainstream Christianity'.

I didn’t suggest that King James wrote it. He commissioned the translation.

And that’s the problem. It was a translation. Translating the original into different languages has given different translations.

When translations of the bible have been done, they (often) are done to push a certain narrative.

In my experience the King James Bible, is the one most often used by bigots to prove being gay in a sin and I think it’s interesting given King James lovers.

He’s a hypocrite and a bigot. Simple as that.
The Bible also forbids growing two different crops in the same field, wearing garments of mixed fabrics and eating shellfish….but I bet he doesn’t check the exact origin of the spuds and carrots he buys in Tesco, his socks are almost certain polyester/cotton blend and he probably wouldn’t think twice about munching on a prawn sandwich.
I was raised in a staunchly Catholic family, and the religious hypocrisy is rife - I removed myself from that side of family life a long time ago because I just couldn’t take it anymore!

It sounds like he just wants attention. It's unprofessional, to say the least.

I would not go down the route of arguing with him. I would take any complaints I needed to HR though.

@Hearthnhome My point was you can't discredit the King James Bible because of the behaviour of its namesake. As God's chosen representative on earth (as he saw it) James I no doubt believed the rules only applied to mere mortals.

I don't agree that translation into different languages makes a huge amount of difference. Most Bibles highlight where a word has been changed or added by the translators and not this in the margin. As I said in another post:

The Bible has remained remarkably unchanged. Yes there are subtle differences after translation and re-writing but these are down the equivalent of spelling color the American way rather than the British English colour, or missing out a word. The actual commands and teachings remain the same despite parts of the Old Testament dating back to at least 1400 BC. We also know what languages it was written in - with the exception of a few books in Aramaic, the Old Testament was written in Hewbrew (the language of the Israelites) and the New Testament was in Greek (not the ancient variety). This is a good explanation:

'The earliest copies of parts of the Hebrew Old Testament were discovered in 1947. They are part of the famous Dead Sea Scrolls and actually date back to the first century BC. Even though they are at least 900 years older than any parts of the Bible we had before this, they are not the originals. They are copies. The originals have all been lost or destroyed. But this is not a cause for dismay. We’re almost certain what the original text said. Copying by scribes was done with great care in those days and because the text was regarded as sacred, the copyists were extremely painstaking. Today some 5000 hand-copied documents exist of all or part of the Bible, and they agree in 98% of the text! No other ancient writing has this amount of underlying support with such amazing agreement as to the text.'

and

'To the Jewish mind, the Old Testament was the word of God. This meant that they were very careful when they copied it. We do not have knowledge of the system the scribes used prior to AD100, but at that time, the Talmudists had taken over the responsibility of copying the Old Testament. They had a set of rules which were quite strict. The most important rules include not copying even the smallest mark from memory. They always had to look at the scroll or codex from which they were copying before they wrote a letter. They also had to make sure that the scroll or codex they were copying from was “certified” as a good copy.

In about AD500, the group of Jewish scribes known as the Masoretes took over the responsibility of copying the Old Testament. They had even stricter rules in that they numbered the letters in each book and knew the middle letters of each book, so they could check the accuracy of their copying down to the number of letters that they copied.
These rules grew out of a deep respect for the Old Testament as the word of God, which was something the scribes shared from the beginning. This shows that they were very careful in making their copies.'

The last few lines of the Bible include "I warn everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: If anyone adds anything to them, God will add to him the plagues described in this book. And if anyone takes words away from this book of prophecy, God will take away from him his share in the tree of life and in the holy city, which are described in this book." A stark warning indeed! I'm sure the devoutly religious men translating the Bible will have had these words at the forefront of their mind.

Tell him to read Matthew 5 28.

@Ringmaster27 Please RTFT!

This x 100!!

@Discovereads I don't think those verses should be interpreted as being about masterbation. The only bit in the whole Bible which could fit this is Genesis 38 about Onan; "...whenever he slept with his brother’s wife, he spilled his semen on the ground to keep from providing offspring for his brother". However, this is more to do with him refusing to fulfill his duty and provide an heir for his brother.

'The historical context shows that slavery in Paul’s day was not as oppressive as later forms of slavery. Many prominent people in the ancient world were slaves, including teachers, writers, politicians, artisans and philosophers. Some slaves were better off financially than many who were born free or had purchased their freedom. And slaves often anticipated their freedom after 10 to 20 years of service to their masters, yet some chose to stay with their masters.

It's still slavery. Owning another human being. It's an abhorrent practise in any form unlike homosexuality which harms no one.* *

He's a hypocrite that chooses the kind of sin to engage in. When in fact there are no big or small sin in God's eyes. ALL SIN IS SIN. Be very weary of such Christians. They are just religious and don't actually have a relationship with Christ.

@workinmums , stupid question, but wouldn't that technically mean God wouldn't judge murdering your neighbour as you wanted to inherit/ steal from them any more seriously than a young student shoplifting make up from superdrug/ clothes from New Look as they want to look good on a night out ?

Is there not a "scale," of sin in God's eyes, where murdering for financial gain would b worse than shoplifting from a chain store for example ?

@Marths I didn't say it wasn't. Of course owning people is abhorrent, but it wasn't slavery as we imagine it from the atrocities of the 17th and 18th centuries. The alternative was quite often starvation.

Meh. He's a boring bigot using ancient scripture to justify his behaviour. I've seen this so many times before. He is wrong, if he were live by the 10 commandments (laws) anyway. Just marvel at his hypocrisy and get on with your day.

Don't even bother to debate him, who cares what his favourite ancient text says about anything. He's being openly homophobic, and that should be dealt with by HR/management. The only reply I'd bother with is "stop being homophobic" whilst writing down in a dedicated notepad what he was saying with the date and time for future reference.

It's difficult to reasonably interpret because these texts were written so long ago they have little practical relevance to life today.

Things like not murdering are pretty standard but we have thankfully come a long way in terms of LGBTQ+, womens rights, equality.

It's not really possible to live by all of the 'rules' in the bible, the example of blended materials is one of the obvious ones.

People like this man aren't worth getting into debate with, they are hiding their own bigotry, homophobia, sexism and misogyny behind a work of fiction written centuries ago for the benefit of rich men.
Perhaps a better way to address it is to report every unpleasant comment to HR?

I wasn't seeking to engage in an argument about Christianity, I am clearly a non believer. My point was just that different sects can and do pick different parts of the Bible to back what they want to believe. In my family, one side have all been Protestant dissenters going back to about 1550.Looking at their beliefs and the sects they followed, some were /are odd or weird to me. The other side were RC and clearly I also find some of those beliefs odd, not being a believer despite 13 years of education in a school that was affiliated to a church and made sure that we knew it. I've yet to meet any 'religious' person who does not feel that their way is the only way, or that some people are totally wrong in respect of their beliefs. If you don't agree that is fine. I wasn't on here to philosophise about religion but to show that you can find something to back up just about any point of view if you look.
Of course early Christians also chose which religious writings to put in the Bible in order to ensure that one narrative was maintained. So again, people picked and chose what to present according to their own views.

I think sometimes we think of God as someone in the sky just looking down and waiting to punish people as soon as they step out of line. I use to think like that too. There is a thing that's called consequences of sin. So someone who committed murder would therefore pay more consequences than someone who shoplifted. But if both persons we're to come to God and ask for forgiveness and repent of their sins, God indeed would forgive them both without measuring which sin is greater. I'ts called GRACE.

I've been a christian all my life and I'm forever learning and building my relationship with Christ. Am I perfect? Not at all. Do I sin? Yes! In-fact I was as sinner since my mother conceived me. The bible says we all sin and fall short of God's glory but because of grace I am given chances after chances. I try not to abuse that grace (I believe that's what your colleague is doing).

Understanding the way God works is not something you can explain to anyone, you have to build that relationship yourself to know who God really is.

Like someone said above, I wouldn't waste my time arguing with that colleague. I pray that God opens his eyes.

So what are the consequences of being gay?

Why are you even engaging with this man, on any level? He sounds like one of those religious, homophobic creeps.

I don't have a book with a list of sins plus their corresponding consequences.

But I will point you to this scripture - Rom. 6. [23] For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.

Don't take it too literal.

Regardless of what the bible says, he isn't a good Christian, which has the underlying tenet to love and accept each other.

Your colleague is, among other things, stupid.

And you can't argue with stupid.

Doesn't really relate to my question at all.