Comment on community for lgbtq+ christians or those learning about christianity
Flax_vert@feddit.uk 10 months ago
Don’t the two contradict?
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 voring 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 effectively. Going to Catechesis was not a chore, but something captivating. I probably wouldn’t have converted if the priest was just trying to brainwash me into repeating Dogma.
So you converted to Christianity just to have a church wedding?
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.
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 people... He must have been pro Lgbtq+
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.
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.
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 wronfully 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 loved by the Christian community, are they?
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 the wrong 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.
Railcar8095@lemmy.world 10 months ago
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
Flax_vert@feddit.uk 10 months ago
So… Christians
Railcar8095@lemmy.world 10 months ago
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.
Flax_vert@feddit.uk 10 months ago
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.