https://lemmy.blahaj.zone/c/lgbtq_plus_christianity
this is probably gonna be controversial, but i mean this for people who actually follow christ’s teachings and not to be a cesspool of homophobia and transphobia.
I wondered into the weeds in the comments momentarily, then got over myself. I think this is great and crossposted you to the openchristian.ca community. I welcome you as a kindred community and hope we can collaborate as kindred while also offering a welcoming space to any view that’s not bigotry and hate-mongering/othering.
talk about getting screwed over from both sides.
best of luck to you and your comm!
thanks so much!!
Don’t the two contradict?
Only for those who take literal meaning and instruction from the Bible. Honestly, nobody who follows any holy book to the letter is fit to live in a society. They can’t change their believes and they don’t have you change themselves. More power to them really
Only for those who take literal meaning and instruction from the Bible
So… Christians
Never personally meet one that did. I’m sure there are, but the only time somebody rejected evolution on the grounds of religion was a Muslim, and a zealot.
I’m not judging all Muslims because of him, neither all Christians because the worse of them.
I think there’s a level of literalism that people talk about. The claims made about homosexuality come off as very literal as they’re letters to a congregation. The creation narrative was likely oral tradition written down after many generations, so you can attribute symbolism to it.
You see how easy is to chose what parts you want you follow literally and which ones you don’t?
Now let them have a less toxic religion.
You’re talking as if the Bible is one book. It isn’t. It’s 66 books. The intention of the likes of 1 Corinthians or Romans as a literal writing and instruction to the Church is different from Genesis which is written legend, or Isaiah which is prophecy. Or Judges which is a record of how badly everyone behaved. It’s like saying that you don’t need to treat the details in a Wikipedia article about Donald Trump as fact because they also have an article on the Mad Hatter from Alice’s Adventures in Wonderland which is fiction. “You’re picking and choosing what parts of Wikipedia to believe”
Another great example of how to rationalize “this part in taking literally and this ones I don’t”. You can also say there was a lot of editorializing, that a lot came from secondary sources…
The Wikipedia analog doesn’t hold any water. For staters, the Wikipedia doesn’t say the mad hatter existed. If the Wikipedia started editorializing history extremely in favor or against trump, that would indeed make me question the validity of articles regarding trump.
Likely depends on whether you ask the church or Jesus. We don’t really have any reliable information, but if he really was a hippie preacher, telling how god loves all of his creatures, and how you can’t hate on each other… He must have been pro Lgbtq+
But that’s just my take on it. Most people who call themselves Christians might disagree.
I think that is a stretch. He appointed Paul who clearly wrote against practicing homosexuality. (Romans 1:27, 1 Corinthians 6:9) He was anti divorce (Mark 10:9) and adultery as well, telling a woman caught in it to “go and sin no more” (John 8:11). Not “Live your truth” or “Love who you love”. Jesus gave us the Church. Now, would Jesus want us to bully those who practice homosexuality? By no means! We should still as Christians treat them with love. But between them and God, repentance is needed. But that’s between them and God. So the likes of Steven Anderson is wrong. (In fact, I don’t think Steven Anderson is even saved). And as well, this is a commandment for Christians. We have no business trying to enforce this on non-Christians.
Anyway, Jesus would probably be hated by the left today (and the right, but I don’t think that needs explaining). He spoke a lot about judgement and hell and condemnation. If anything, the left and right might unite to crucify Him these days.
People in the past said “My ideology is good and Jesus was good so Jesus must be on my side” such as the Nazis and the slaveowners. It’s dangerous logic.
You’re mostly right except that “the left” would ABSOLUTELY NOT crucify Jesus… Especially if he was as chill and anti-capitalist as the stories imply.
Uh, that’s mainly your opinion. I’m pretty sure both passages you gave remain contested. It’s likely about male pederasty or prostitution while sex between men in general might be completely fine. And we know for example what Paul’s role was, and that was to do politics, not quote Jesus verbatim. So you have to look at the context. That part in Romans is mainly a summary of Hellenistic Jewish legalism, not anything new, not even really about Jesus. It’s the customs of the jewish people.
Corinthans again doesn’t condemn homosexuality, but you need to read several paragraphs on ancient greek and history to even understand what the word even means. It’s not as easy as “homosexuality” to which it has been wrongfully translated.
I don’t see a strong argument why male homosexuality should be wrong. Most other passages also talk about it in the context of violence or abuse. And we can all agree that’s wrong. But a loving homosexual relationship is a different thing. And then someone still needs to quote some bible verses to me regarding lesbians, trans-people, … They’re obviously accepted and loved by the Christian community, are they?
Jesus taught us not to accept man-made bullshit like right-wing politics or hate. He’s figuratively come to earth to oppose conservatism. He taught us to use our own brains instead and try love and understanding towards other creatures. And have respect before God’s creation. Which includes a variety of sexual preference and identity. Especially being the underdog and caring for the weak people is what he did and central to leftist-liberal ideology. And opposed by the right.
And I think if your objective were to be to follow the footsteps of Jesus, you’d have dinner with the adulterers, go visit the prostitutes and embrace them, let them wash and perfume your feet. And have everyone give money to the poor. Not do anything else, especially not shit on them. Because that’s what he did.
And he wasn’t super fond of the Church either. I mean he went there and yelled at people for what they did to his father’s place. Opposed the clerics…
So how does that suddenly translate into nazis, slaveowners etc? That’s clearly wrong by his teachings. On the contrary, he came to abolish exactly these kinds of things.
Corinthians uses the word Arsenokoitai. It is also found in 1 Timothy 1:10 and in the Septuagint translation of Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13.
It is a compound word, formed from “arsen” (male) and “koitēs” (bed), so essentially meaning “men who bed with other men”. Biblical scholars who translate the Bible and know ancient greek always seem to translate it to be people who practice homosexuality or anal sexual intercourse. Basically every reputable translation of the Bible translates it along those lines, and the Church has held that interpretation universally throughout the majority of it’s history with no dispute. People are only starting to try and reinterpret it in the wake of the pride movement- which is Eisegesis, not Exegesis, and completely dishonest.
There is no evidence in the text anywhere that it could be indicating paedastry
Now, as for a loving relationship versus the violence or abuse argument, what Paul writes in Romans basically debunks that theory completely:
Romans 1:26-27 NRSV
For this reason God gave them up to degrading passions. Their women exchanged natural intercourse for unnatural, and in the same way also the men, giving up natural intercourse with women, were consumed with passion for one another. Men committed shameless acts with men and received in their own persons the due penalty for their error.
were consumed with passion for one another
Indicates a consensual relationship involving a passion. In no place here is violence indicated. In fact, quite the opposite.
Trying to claim that Jesus fits in any secular political viewpoint (leftism, conservatism) is a very shallow view and completely incorrect.
And I think if your objective were to be to follow the footsteps of Jesus, you’d have dinner with the adulterers, go visit the prostitutes and embrace them, let them wash and perfume your feet. And have everyone give money to the poor. Not do anything else, especially not shit on them. Because that’s what he did.
And I think here, you’re absolutely right. Although by “embrace” them, not to necessarily affirm what they’re doing, but to show them love in their sinful state. Christ didn’t come to save the just (which none of us are) but the unjust.
And he wasn’t super fond of the Church either. I mean he went there and yelled at people for what they did to his father’s place. Opposed the clerics…
Namely the Pharisees who were more concerned about the law than the Gospel.
So how does that suddenly translate into nazis, slaveowners etc? That’s clearly wrong by his teachings. On the contrary, he came to abolish exactly these kinds of things.
By reinterpreting the Bible in your own way, and letting your worldly passions fit your interpretation (Eisegesis) instead of letting the Bible shape you and your viewpoint (Exegesis)
One thing I learned was simple. If I have a problem with something the Bible says, if it doesn’t fit my worldview, then I’m the one with the problem and needs to be fixed. Not the Bible. As a human, I can be wrong, and need to be corrected by scripture. And I should do the best I can to follow what I am commanded to in Scripture.
Essentially, if I disagree with the Bible, then I’m the one who’s wrong. Not the Bible.
Yeah well, Greeks and Romans also translates “tsela” to read rib as the rib of a man, rather then "side”, and the Jews lean toward "side,” and also consider yhwh androgyne.
Paul was a human, falliable, like the rest of us, and finally the council of nicea out a bunch of books so they could please their oppressors, in the personage of Constantine.
The word in question here isn’t Tsela. It’s Arsenokoitai.
The biblical canon was not discussed at the Council of Nicaea. The Council of Nicaea was to address the Arian heresy.
[…] Arsenokoitai
Yeah, I read some 3 page essay on how that word was used. I know “every reputable translation of the Bible translates it along those lines” but that doesn’t make it correct to translate it to a different word in and view it from a different perspective / a different context 2000 years later. I think it’s ambiguous at best. And skipping the 3 pages and making it about todays homosexuals is an oversimplicifaction and simply wrong.
[…] Eisegesis, not Exegesis
I’m not that educated on church doctrine, but do we even have access to exegesis? I mean sure technically the scripture is the meaning by definition. But isn’t what Paul writes already something like eisegesis? I mean he’s a human and he interpreted and spread the teachings for us.
no evidence in the text anywhere that it could be indicating pederasty
Well, I think pederasty is very wrong. If that part of the Bible fails to recognize or even mention that, I condemn the scripture for that.
Romans 1:26-27
Again, that’s Paul’s summary of Hellenistic legalism. That’s the entire context of that part of Romans.
Trying to claim that Jesus fits in any secular political viewpoint (leftism, conservatism) is a very shallow view and completely incorrect.
I know. The entire left/right spectrum is completely incorrect. But I gave some examples of what kind of person Jesus was and if he advocated for the people and the weak, or for the strong ones and the establishment. He happens to have quite some overlap there with core leftist ideology.
you’d have dinner with the adulterers […]
And I think here, you’re absolutely right. Although […]
There is no “although”. He clearly left out picking on their “sinful state” the way the other people did. He went there and all he had was love. It’s not super straightforward but I’m pretty sure we can skip lecturing them on those kinds of “sins”.
By reinterpreting the Bible in your own way […] Essentially, if I disagree with the Bible, then I’m the one who’s wrong. Not the Bible.
Yeah I mean good luck with that. It’s full of contradictions, stuff that was written after Jesus. You need to believe the earth is 6000 years old and rectancular with angels in the four corners playing the trumpet on doomsday. (Which should have happened a long time ago, but it didn’t.) And you can’t even tell whether it’s okay to eat Shrimp or a cheeseburger unless you do Eisegesis. Slavery and a lot of things we view as wrong today aren’t technically outlawed by the Bible and it really depends on what part of it you refer to when judging. Then we have weird parts especially in the old scripture like you can’t go to church if you’re missing a testicle or you’re asian. And I’m pretty sure all the raining frogs and so on is made up and not meant to be taken literally.
But isn’t what Paul writes already something like eisegesis? I mean he’s a human and he interpreted and spread the teachings for us.
By the appointment of Christ and the power of the Holy Spirit
I condemn the scripture for that.
You aren’t in any position to condemn the inspired word of God
There is no “although”
The “although” I placed there was because I wanted to make sure that you didn’t show Jesus as claiming that sin isn’t sin, and I was agreeing to a misunderstanding of what you were saying.
Yeah I mean good luck with that. It’s full of contradictions, stuff that was written after Jesus. You need to believe the earth is 6000 years old and rectancular
The Bible doesn’t say that.
And you can’t even tell whether it’s okay to eat Shrimp or a cheeseburger unless you do Eisegesis.
It’s not as Eisegesis, it’s covenant theology. The Council of Jerusalem in Acts 15 also highlights this, as does Paul in several of his epistles. It’s why we don’t circumcise men anymore.
Slavery and a lot of things we view as wrong today aren’t outlawed by the Bible and it really depends on what part of it you refer to when judging.
Chattel Slavery that existed in 1700-1800s America wasn’t happening in that society.
And I’m pretty sure all the raining frogs and so on is made up and not meant to be taken literally.
Are you talking about the plagues of Moses? If that’s the case, then what do you propose happened?
You are drawing a huge and dangerous brush over here. The Bible is a compilation of 66 divinely inspired books. Some are poetry and some are prophecy, like the imagery in Isaiah, Daniel, Ezekiel, Revelation, etc. It is obvious then that stuff like that is up for interpretation. But then when you get to Paul’s epistles which are separate literary works, and he says
1 Timothy 1:9-11 ESV
understanding this, that the law is not laid down for the just but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and sinners, for the unholy and profane, for those who strike their fathers and mothers, for murderers, the sexually immoral, men who practice homosexuality, enslavers, liars, perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to sound doctrine, in accordance with the gospel of the glory of the blessed God with which I have been entrusted.
It isn’t figurative that enslavers, liars, murderers are evil (at least I hope not) so why do you grant homosexuality an exception?
1 Corinthians 6:9-11 ESV
Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. And such were some of you. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.
This doesn’t come off as figurative either.
If the whole Bible can be taken figuratively like you argue, then we can discard Jesus’ teaching on forgiveness when someone is a former pornstar, and we can say “oh, you’re too far gone to be forgiven” “Oh, he meant everyone else, not you, sweetie”
Using God to justify hate is so last Millenium. Be more honest and say you don’t like it, God doesn’t need your help to look gross.
You aren’t in any position to condemn the inspired word of God.
If it promotes adult men sleeping with underage boys, or is indecisive about it, I’ll just refuse that kind of “inspiration”. I think it’s immoral. God can strike me down for that if he likes, and if he’s in a position to do that, still doesn’t change my mind about the subject.
The “although” I placed there was because […]
Yes, you were talking about something else. People just tend to lose me when talking about God’s unconditional love and then following the sentence up with a “but” or “although”. I think we agree here. I have reason to believe the New Testament is about unconditional love. And that’s reflected at many places in it. Most people add a “but”, or “although”, an we’re immediately in dangerous territory. And the people calling themselves Christians and waving signs with “God hates fags” didn’t understand the core of that the New Testament stands for. They’re simply wrong. But that’s not what you said.
In the old times God was kind of evil. He send plagues, told people to kill each other including all women and children, just the young girls are okay to keep. Nonchalantly drowned pretty much all animals which were pretty much innocent in mankinds wrongdoings. Or he casually dropped them on their heads. It’s not like that any more for Christians. That’s replaced by Gods unconditional love for his children. And the way of Jesus isn’t to blame them and lecture them on how they’re wrong all the time. But specifically omit that and show them just(!) the love, and that gets them where they need to be. So that’s why I think we should never follow up such sentences with a “but”. (And you lost me, which was due to me.)
Are you talking about the plagues of Moses? If that’s the case, then what do you propose happened?
I propose it’s part of the supposed origin story of a tribe. And the hardships they had to endure. I have no reason to believe superstitious things happen and physics can be contradicted. Plague of locusts exist and all kind of other things. But not random frog droppings in the way portrayed there.
Btw that’s also the source for the (6000 years) young earth theory, because as part of the origin story, it includes a family tree and you can add the numbers up.
You are drawing a huge and dangerous brush over here. […] It is obvious then that stuff like that is up for interpretation. But then when you get to Paul’s epistles […]
I think my main issue is that I completely fail to understand how I’m supposed to know which is open up to interpretation and what’s meant to be taken literally. Am I supposed to use reason and my deductive skills here? But that’s kind of interpretation again. So I can’t do that. And to my knowledge the Bible doesn’t really come with an instruction manual what’s true and what’s over exaggerated or just a nice (but false) story. Or do I just take what some other human said as word for it?
why do you grant homosexuality an exception?
I tried to explain that before. Because it’s not there. The text doesn’t use the word homosexuality, but “Arsenokoitai”. And the passages regularly add constraining adjectives. Which just isn’t the case for adultery. The translation is way more forward for that one. And we have more occurrences in the Bible which make it very clear that that one isn’t just meant within a certain context, or comes with exceptions. Also Jesus talks about other important issues himself, but for homosexuality that’s all in parts added by other people. So that’s why I treat that differently.
I mean we have a bit more of an issue here. I started with “depends on whether you ask the church or Jesus”. So I’m not really bothered by what Paul thought or wrote down, or covenant theology tells me. If homosexuality were to be important to Jesus, I’d expect it to show up in the Sermon of the Mount or something, and him clearly addressing that big issue. Or I’d like to read some nice parable on how he went to the gay club. But curiously enough, these passages don’t exist.
Something amusing: looking at the profiles of the people who are voting your comment up, it’s mostly people who have a history of very progressive comments and posts. They are voting you up because they think you are arguing that being religious is incompatible with being LGBTQ.
So, in a perfect illustration of horseshoe theory, you are getting the support from people who think that Christianity is wrong,
They are voring you up
😳
I remember seeing a clip a while ago of a prominent atheist getting annoyed at a self proclaimed “Christian” who rejected the resurrection. Essentially telling them to just become an Atheist at that point.
And the main reason that I had no objections to join the Orthodox Church (wife is Greek, she wanted a Church wedding and for that to happen I needed to convert to any Christian denomination) was because my priest said : “I am not going to baptize you just so you can marry in the Church, I want you to attend the Catechesis for at least the next six months. I want you to learn Orthodox doctrine, but the main reason I want you here is to understand our traditions and our values as Greeks. I don’t particularly expect you to become a devout Christian, but I do expect you to find harmony with your community, your wife and your extended family”.
He wasn’t trying to convince me to accept and blindly repeat key doctrine points. He wasn’t telling me what to do in a ritual “because that’s what God wants us to do”. He was telling me “these are what these rituals represent, and if you have some faith it will mean something for you”.
I found his take surprisingly effective. Going to Catechesis was not a chore, but something captivating. I probably wouldn’t have converted and just done the civil cerimony if the priest was just trying to brainwash me into repeating Dogma.
So you converted to Christianity just to have a church wedding?
No. I was also eager to piss off holier-than-thou assholes like you.
So essentially religious appropriation. Got it.
Seriously, read what I wrote again. I explicitly said that I wouldn’t have converted if it was only for the wedding.
And it’s ridiculous to even mention something like “appropriation”. I am disparaging you and your borderline-fundamentalist views on Christianity, not Christianity itself.
We are all sinners, aren’t we?
Yes
So, what is the contradiction here?
Just because we’re all sinners isn’t a licence to sin.
That does not answer the question.
Do you think a “divorced Christians” community would be a contradiction?
If they were affirming unbiblical divorces, or seeking to remarry and encouraging it, yes
You haven’t even seen what the community is about and yet you are ready to pass judgement on it.
