Comment on community for lgbtq+ christians or those learning about christianity
hendrik@palaver.p3x.de 2 weeks agoYou 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".
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.
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.
Flax_vert@feddit.uk 2 weeks ago
To which I was never objecting to. I was saying that loving a sinner doesn’t necessarily mean you are loving the sin.
God cannot be evil.
What about the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ, or the many miracles He performed?
hendrik@palaver.p3x.de 2 weeks ago
Yes, I'm wrong here. I think it's a bit of a technicality. He created evil (Isiah 45:7) and no matter if he commits the same thing as evil, per definition that never makes him be evil.
I think it's a metaphor. And not even the most important one (to me). I think the important part is that he died for us. And then they added some more fluff to the story. It really brings it home and sets him apart as the messiah if there's an added resurrection. And well, I think performing miracles was quite common for prophets back then and paranormal things happened often. Muhammad also performed many miracles including similar ones like providing supernatural food. Various other people did it, too. And people split the sea and did all kinds of things in the Old Testament.
I'm still very unconvinced about the entire homosexuality thing. I mean the Romans text is kind of the God of the Old Testament, needy for valudation and full of wrath. And then he was pissed and gave humans sexual desires contrary to nature. And that and the "shameless acts" are a bit unclear. Whatever that is supposed to mean if I'm not allowed to interpret it. I'd say men loving each other in a genuine way surely can't be that, there's no shame or harm in that.
The Corinthian thing is more it. Still needs context though, since it requires knowledge about sex practices back then and what has been considered immoral by society back then, because it mostly refers to that. And then we have the translation in the way.
My big issue, if that's not concerned with pederasty... What part of the New Testament is? Or is age just not the problematic part of it, ...that'd be completely fine to do for Christians, just that they have the same gender?
Flax_vert@feddit.uk 2 weeks ago
Hold it - so you don’t even believe Jesus rose from the dead? You’ve basically proved my point then that it’s a contradiction.
You don’t believe that Jesus rose from the dead (and thus aren’t even Christian in that case) If that’s the case I think it is safe to assume that you don’t believe Jesus is the very God who determines what love and acceptance are, or right and wrong, all you’re really doing is stuffing your own definition of those words into some warmed over talking points, then stuffing that inside the hollowed out name of “Jesus” so you can tell me I am wrong about what my God teaches.
Since you have to disregard Christianity to make your logic work, it proves my point that talking points such as these are incompatible with Christianity.
hendrik@palaver.p3x.de 2 weeks ago
No, I'm not a Christian. I'm sorry, now I think I should have lead with that, or recognized you were under the assumption I was. I have such an upbringing, I've been part of the church. But I myself don't have the belief in me, that what's in the Bible are factual truths. Still, that doesn't stop me from being interested in Jesus, his life and teachings. And to some degree the scripture itself.
And thanks for the good conversation and your perspective. I learned some things. And I looked some up. My intention was basically that, not proclaim you were wrong. That'd be very hypocritical if I were to try to prove you wrong on the basis of scripture, which I don't even have as the basis for my own morals. I still think these things matter, though. And I follow how the catholic (and protestant) church around me has started blessing same sex couples, they have campaigns now for plurality and welcome such people amongst themselves. And the attached youth organizations sometimes take part in rainbow events like pride month. At least where I live. And from what I get from our conversation, we're likely on the same page here, when I say I welcome that and I think it's a "good" advancement the church made. (It wasn't always like this.)
I think with "the act" itself, we can't settle our differences. I think the entire limitation of sex to procreation isn't right, and I don't base that on scripture. You gave me quite some insight about your perspective, and I still struggle with the translation and interpretation, but I think I have at least some understanding now.