https://lemmy.blahaj.zone/c/lgbtq_plus_christianity
this is probably gonna be controversial, but i mean this for people who actually follow christ’s teachings and not to be a cesspool of homophobia and transphobia.
https://lemmy.blahaj.zone/c/lgbtq_plus_christianity
this is probably gonna be controversial, but i mean this for people who actually follow christ’s teachings and not to be a cesspool of homophobia and transphobia.
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 each other… He must have been pro Lgbtq+
But that’s just my take on it. Most people who call themselves Christians might disagree.
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.
People in the past said “My ideology is good and Jesus was good so Jesus must be on my side” such as the Nazis and the slaveowners. It’s dangerous logic.
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. It’s the customs of the jewish people.
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 wrongfully 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 accepted and loved by the Christian community, are they?
Jesus taught us not to accept man-made bullshit like right-wing politics or hate. He’s figuratively come to earth to oppose conservatism. He taught us to use our own brains instead and try love and understanding towards other creatures. And have respect before God’s creation. Which includes a variety of sexual preference and identity. Especially being the underdog and caring for the weak people is what he did and central to leftist-liberal ideology. And opposed by the right.
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 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…
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.
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 your own 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.
Yeah well, Greeks and Romans also translates “tsela” to read rib as the rib of a man, rather then "side”, and the Jews lean toward "side,” and also consider yhwh androgyne.
Paul was a human, falliable, like the rest of us, and finally the council of nicea out a bunch of books so they could please their oppressors, in the personage of Constantine.
The word in question here isn’t Tsela. It’s Arsenokoitai.
The biblical canon was not discussed at the Council of Nicaea. The Council of Nicaea was to address the Arian heresy.
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. (Which should have happened a long time ago, but it didn’t.) And you can’t even tell whether it’s okay to eat Shrimp or a cheeseburger unless you do Eisegesis. Slavery and a lot of things we view as wrong today aren’t technically outlawed by the Bible and it really depends on what part of it you refer to when judging. Then we have weird parts especially in the old scripture like you can’t go to church if you’re missing a testicle or you’re asian. And I’m pretty sure all the raining frogs and so on is made up and not meant to be taken literally.
By the appointment of Christ and the power of the Holy Spirit
You aren’t in any position to condemn the inspired word of God
The “although” I placed there was because I wanted to make sure that you didn’t show Jesus as claiming that sin isn’t sin, and I was agreeing to a misunderstanding of what you were saying.
The Bible doesn’t say that.
It’s not as Eisegesis, it’s covenant theology. The Council of Jerusalem in Acts 15 also highlights this, as does Paul in several of his epistles. It’s why we don’t circumcise men anymore.
Chattel Slavery that existed in 1700-1800s America wasn’t happening in that society.
Are you talking about the plagues of Moses? If that’s the case, then what do you propose happened?
You are drawing a huge and dangerous brush over here. The Bible is a compilation of 66 divinely inspired books. Some are poetry and some are prophecy, like the imagery in Isaiah, Daniel, Ezekiel, Revelation, etc. It is obvious then that stuff like that is up for interpretation. But then when you get to Paul’s epistles which are separate literary works, and he says
1 Timothy 1:9-11 ESV
It isn’t figurative that enslavers, liars, murderers are evil (at least I hope not) so why do you grant homosexuality an exception?
1 Corinthians 6:9-11 ESV
This doesn’t come off as figurative either.
If the whole Bible can be taken figuratively like you argue, then we can discard Jesus’ teaching on forgiveness when someone is a former pornstar, and we can say “oh, you’re too far gone to be forgiven” “Oh, he meant everyone else, not you, sweetie”
Using God to justify hate is so last Millenium. Be more honest and say you don’t like it, God doesn’t need your help to look gross.
Not what I ever advocated for
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.
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”. (And you lost me, which was due to me.)
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 in the way portrayed there.
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.
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?
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.
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?
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 supernatural acts. 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 the same gender needs clarification?