Comment on community for lgbtq+ christians or those learning about christianity
hendrik@palaver.p3x.de 1 week agoGod cannot be evil.
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.
What about the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ, or the many miracles He performed?
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 1 week 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 1 week 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.
Flax_vert@feddit.uk 1 week ago
I’m glad we had the discussion. Although I don’t really see why Christians should be expected to alter their beliefs to suit that of non-Christians (in the same way I have no interest in convincing atheists that homosexuality is morally wrong). I think I have said that homophobia - in terms of actually attacking and/or trying to worsen the quality of life or remove rights from homosexual people is completely wrong.
1 Corinthians 5:12-13
hendrik@palaver.p3x.de 1 week ago
I think the main issue is that the Bible isn't concise enough for a supposed divine book. It rarely tells me useful things and what to do in my modern life in the big city. Instead it has a lot of passages about camels, living in the bronze age and so on. And I think that's because of what it is. Written by humans, a long time ago, shaped by their perspective. If God had wanted it to contain absolute truth, he shouldn't just have appointed them to write it, but handed out some absolute truth.
And I can see how can interpret all kinds of things into it. We definitely have the "Christians" who focus on hate. Who run around with these "God hates fags" signs and they find all kinda of things to make other people's life miserable. We have several variants of Christianity and they disagree on many details. We had things from the Spanish Inquisition to today's more liberal times. All based on pretty much the same text. And why is that? Are 99% of people throughout history, and the other variants of current Christians all just wrong and on the wrong path and I'm the only one understanding it correctly? Or who is?
I think it's because Christians do in fact base their morals not just on straightforward literal bible verses. That's why they're able to adopt to societal progress. We don't just make women's life miserable any more. They got the right to vote and they're supposed to have equal opportunities now. We even allow them to become teachers. And that's pretty much in direct violation of the bible. Yet I have some friends who are teachers, some even for religion. And the protestant church here even has a male and a female priest and she doesn't view her role as to stay quiet and bear childs. The catholic church which I've grown up in thinks that's not how it's done and the don't appoint females. (Plus she has some formal education on scripture and the inner workings of the Church, so I trust she knows more about it than me.)
Point being: Women's rights are not an achievement of the church. They didn't sit down, have a covenant and then changed the world to be more open towards women... It's the other way around. Society made progress, and it was a long hard fight. And people adopted.
I think it's basically the same thing with the stands towards LGBTQ+ people.
And we have a few other issues in the catholic church, like Maria 2.0 and their ideas towards contraceptives which are highly problematic because it contributes to spreading HIV.
I have little issues with you and your personal belief system. The issue is that we're all part of the same world and it has quite some impact. And the church still has a big influence. They employ some of my friends, they run entire hospitals and more. They shape society and more. And I'm everything but indifferent towards that.
Luckily the community around me mostly shares what I recognize in your comments as well. How "The gospel" means "good news" and that's the central point of how you're supposed to practice it.