Comment on community for lgbtq+ christians or those learning about christianity
hendrik@palaver.p3x.de 2 weeks agoLikely 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+
Flax_vert@feddit.uk 2 weeks ago
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.
MotoAsh@lemmy.world 2 weeks ago
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.
hendrik@palaver.p3x.de 2 weeks ago
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?
Flax_vert@feddit.uk 2 weeks ago
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
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 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.
Namely the Pharisees who were more concerned about the law than the Gospel.
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.
hendrik@palaver.p3x.de 2 weeks ago
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.
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.
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.
Again, that's Paul's summary of Hellenistic legalism. That's the entire context of that part of Romans.
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.
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".
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. And you can't even tell whether it's okay to eat Shrimp unless you do Eisegesis. And I'm pretty sure all the raining frogs and so on is made up and not meant to be taken literally.