Let's do a Catholic Bible Study and get into the dark/dirty parts of scripture. Everything is there for a reason!

:)

Seriously though, I would say it's a tossup between two parts. One part is all the stuff in the Old Testament where the death penalty is commanded for things like blasphemy, worshiping the wrong god, cursing your parents, or even picking up sticks on the wrong day of the week.

The other part is all the stories about slaughter and genocide, including commands to kill entire towns, sparing nobody, not even kids.

Why is this marked NSFW?

Because sometimes the Bible is NSFW, lol. It's got some shady parts.

I'm looking for specific passages. Chapter and verse and why it's problematic to you. :)

I'll have to reply later since it'll take some time to track down the specific verses :)

How about just one verse at a time after we're done digesting one we can chew on another lol.

1 Kings 1:1-4 The story about Abishag leaves a bad taste in my mouth.

1 When King David was very old, he could not keep warm even when they put covers over him.

2 So his attendants said to him, “Let us look for a young virgin to serve the king and take care of him. She can lie beside him so that our lord the king may keep warm.”

3 Then they searched throughout Israel for a beautiful young woman and found Abishag, a Shunammite, and brought her to the king.

4 The woman was very beautiful; she took care of the king and waited on him, but the king had no sexual relations with her.

Yea that's weird but not as bad as Lot offering his virgin daughters to the town men to rape

"Yea that's weird but not as bad as Lot offering his virgin daughters to the town men to rape"

And remember that he was called righteous

And King David was one of the Lord's favorites.

I'm always disturbed when homophobes quote Leviticus 20:13. Like, do you want to f**king kill me?!
There's also Numbers 15:32-36.
Numbers 31:17-18

Agreed. The homophobia as recorded in those particular verses are very disturbing to me.

And you should know, I'm the kind of person who as a child not only bothered to pick up the Holy Bible at a very young age (about 10 to 12 years old) and read (as well as understood) large portions of it when all the other kids wanted to play sports or video-games, but I also went even further and extensively studied as well as researched the Holy Bible, openly had theological and philosophical discussions with numerous Roman-Catholic clerics about what Church doctrine truly entailed (and maybe prompted potential new fields in it), and even downloaded an offline Roman-Catholic Holy-Bible app so that I'd have the Bible on my phone no matter where or what, IN ADDITION to being a practicing baptized-&-confirmed Roman-Catholic --- and for some reason, just because I happen to be bisexual and a furry, all of that is negated?

Please be mindful that this stream welcomes people of all backgrounds in all walks of faith and we encourage discussion of doctrine rather than targeting individuals. Can you please rephrase your comment to pose a question that encourages respectful dialogue? 😊

Yes maam

Thanks 😊

Well, the Bible in it of itself condemns beastiality and homosexuality. Perhaps that may be why?

First off, bestiality is essentially zoophilia - I'm not a zoophile (one who pleasures themselves with animals), I'm a furry (one who has a fascination with anthropomorphic animals in the artistic and costume-related senses [as well as the increasingly scientific and philosophical sense] as a hobby) - there's a difference.

And second of all, regarding homosexuality and its negatively-percieved stance the Bible, that may be there because of a mistranslation or misinterpretation purposefully done by a perhaps homophobic priest a long time ago, and it evidently stuck due to there not being a lot of education in the Middle-Ages (the printing press facilitated a lot of modern education to come into being) and that people went off their own Village Bible more often than not. So the Bible may in fact be tolerant of LGBTQ+ people, but we have no idea because of the truth likely being lost in translation - until the modern day, that is.

Well there is no mistranslation. There are hundreds of sources that you can go back on and see the translation. Plus there and many sections that include the context. Like a man who sleeps with a man should be put to death, and so with woman. The word man is used as a meaning of mankind, not boy as many people would think. Or this verse here, Leviticus 18:22-Do not have sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman; that is detestable. That seems very direct to me. There is no mistranslation like many people claim. Also look at Romans 1:27-In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error. Men committed shameful acts with other men. Unless you would like to call the entire section a mistranslation.

I dunno if these "hundreds of sources" that you just mentioned are credible ones (or are riddled with bias as many other Human works are, if not all of them, due to being made by Humans), but then again, it does say in the Bible that God is a loving, forgiving, and merciful God. It is also said that God commands you to "love both God and neighbor as you would yourself" - "neighbor" is gender-neutral (male, female, or androgynous can apply here). It is also said that one should respect others and their beliefs as you would your own (in the end, it is between them and God). And what about the concept of free will and how we Catholics love our moral agency and the ability to choose?

Well if it’s between them and God, then it doesn’t mean it’s right. That just means that God is going to punish them directly. What exactly do you mean by free will. Do you mean the Arminianism version of free will or God giving us the gift of choice?

Detestable.

How

A detestable doctrine.

Gimme an argument for it

"Because of how you're born you're forbidden from finding love or satisfaction on pain of hell."

How come this many people before weren’t born gay or anything like that?

Beastiality is a completely different subject m

Ok I made a mistake. But you ignore the other section

I ignore nothing.

Yea you didn’t mention anything

No response from Kate 🤔

Kates a busy person

Do you know the context of numbers 31:17-18?

No context can justify it.

Yes it can

LMFAO no

Really? Because did anyone say they were trying to kill you?