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.
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?
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.
No, I’m not a Christian. I’m sorry, now I think I should have lead with that, or not failed to recognize 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 a lot of 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 the context it is in and its interpretation, but I think I have at least some understanding now.
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