Comment on community for lgbtq+ christians or those learning about christianity
Railcar8095@lemmy.world 3 weeks agoNever 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 3 weeks 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.
Railcar8095@lemmy.world 3 weeks ago
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.
Flax_vert@feddit.uk 3 weeks ago
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”
Railcar8095@lemmy.world 3 weeks ago
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.