From the King James Version:
Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.
I wonder why you picked that one verse for your reply. Should I take it personally?
Because so-called “True Christians” in this country think that verse is more important than the ones about loving strangers and helping the poor and so on. The fundamentalists are the butt of the joke because they probably couldn’t tell you a single other thing about Leviticus.
The rest of it is “woke”. For real.
Unless regarding himself as a god counts as religious.
I think it’s more aimed at the straight women, who are sinning, sinning, sinning, and ought to embrace God’s plan that they be lesbians.
Fun aside: according to the Talmud, the only female-female sex act that’s forbidden is “rubbing against each other”, but the only punishment is that they are disqualified from marrying a kohen.
Isn’t it about time someone informed him about what the Roman emperors did to achieve true apotheosis?
Vespasian: “Woe is me, I fear I am becoming a god.”
Trump: “A very respected Olympian called me the other day, I can’t tell you which one, but it was Ares, the god of war, son of Zeus, very powerful god, I call him Scary Ares, he had tears in his eyes, he said ‘Sir, nobody’s ever been more of a god than you, the Earth trembles before your feet, everyone keeps telling me Trump is their favorite god, much more worthy of godhood than Obama,’ Obama could never become a god, he’s a low-IQ individual…”
I would much rather Trump strive to undo the harm he has done to others in this life than engage in religious ritual and prayer. Anyone can speak words, it’s by a man’s actions we know his true character. God can read souls, we can’t.
Speaking as a Jew, that sounds like blasphemy and false advertising!
Of course, on the most expansive read, almost all sex acts involve “rubbing against each other”.
Soaking!
Which verse, it’s worth pointing out, which in the original is rather arcane, requiring a fair amount of context clues and linguistics investigating to tease out any coherent meaning, was consistently translated (including King James) as some variety of “thou shalt not rape little boys” until 1946 when someone realized that the Bible doesn’t actually say anything about gay people, so they tortured that passage into being about that instead of child rape. Which is rather emblematic of modern-day conservatism.
I’d be interested in seeing that laid out in a translation progression of that verse from the original to modern English (via Greek and maybe other languages, I suppose) if you know where I can find one. One that is as close as possible to the original meaning, that is. If that’s possible, without me having to read the yards-long shelf of commentaries that probably exist.
And I’m curious how the date 1946 comes into it. Did the King James Version get edited at that time?
Yes, please!
I may be conflating a few different readings I’ve done on the subject. The 1946 date is the first time the word “homosexual” was used, but the verse was translated in some editions to still prohibit “lung with a man”. The original text translates as something like “man shall not lie the lyings down of a woman”, and the specific words used point to a prohibition of same-sex incestuous rape, which was reflected in several translations until the 20th century.
Here’s one analysis:
Continuing the discussion of the Leviticus verse elsewhere (see link immediately above) to avoid further hijacking of the noble purpose of this thread.
Thank you!
Let’s get back to the important stuff: the spectacle of DJT’s declining days, weeks, months. Please don’t say years…please…
And euphemisms. 
You’re addressing someone who hopes to remain a monotheist; I’m addressing someone who hopes to learn how to spell “desecration.”