You're viewing a single thread.
This is an asinine take on Christianity. What’s the point here?
The vast majority of Christians in the world don’t do this and don’t think like this. Hateful people are going to hate what is different no matter its form.
If you labeled this “Muslims openly behead gays because they believe gays would do the same” the post would be just as inane as it is in its current state.
Hate is hate.
Strange we rarely hear from the vast majority or least the vast majority doesn't speak out to condemn their hateful brothers and sister, in fact I've yet to meet one of these open and accepting Christians in my 44 years on this earth and I live in a heavily populated christian city.
The vast majority rarely speak on anything.
I’m sorry you’ve never met one of these “open and accepting” Christians. I haven’t met someone who’s been to the IST, but I know people have been there. I think it would be nice if you open your mind to the idea that there are people that exist that you’ve not met.
I'm sure they exist, My point was they aren't the majority. I've met plenty of nice people and nice Christians, My experience with Christians as a majority is they aren't open or accepting,
Again, I’m sorry that this has been your experience. This hasn’t been mine.
I came to Christianity at an age when most people leave religion. I went from having nothing and no one to having a steady family who love and support me and give me others to love and support in kind. My church family is open and welcoming. We just removed a minister who began an opening prayer admonishing gays because when he was told “we don’t do that here” he got mad about it.
I wholly recognize that there is a set of people who scream about un-Christian things in the name of Christianity, but I reject the notion that these people are representative of the majority of Christians.
Maybe if more good people like yourself spoke out against the hateful ones Christianity would attract more people.
Yeah. I'm a very religious Christian and never knocked a door and I believe homosexuality isn't a sin. And I know atheists or at least agnostics who actually believe that there's an homosexual propaganda trying to “homosexualize” people.
Does your book not say that homosexuality is a sin?
It really doesn't. English translations of it do, but in the Greek, it pointedly avoids using the words for homosexuality.
The one exception is Romans 1, but it's a rhetorical argument against the legalism of the Jewish Christians, not against homosexuality.
That's not quite correct. If we look at 1 Corinthians 6:9 (not nice) and the commentaries around the words to explain it, we can find things like the below. Summary: not just being gay but even being effeminate. Additionally, I've never heard a single sermon where they were saying the Greek doesn't actually mean that. They all very much meant it.
Reading exercise if anyone likes walls of text.
English amplified:
9Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit or have any share in the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor (perversely) effeminate, nor homosexuals, 10nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers [whose words are used as weapons to abuse, insult, humiliate, intimidate, or slander], nor swindlers will inherit or have any share in the kingdom of God.
Here's one commentary: https://gospelreformation.net/pauls-understanding-of-sexuality/
Paul’s Meaning in 1 Corinthians 6:9 First, the two words malakoi and arsenokoitai describe individuals who are engaged in activity that Paul regards to be sin. We see this point in at least two ways. First, these two words fall in a much longer list in 1 Cor 6:9-10. Paul insists that persons whose lives are characterized by these actions “will [not] inherit the kingdom of God” (1 Cor 6:10). There is considerable overlap between this list and the list of 1 Cor 5:11, which describes individuals who are subject to the discipline of the church. Second, the word arsenokoitai appears in one other place in the New Testament, 1 Tim 1:10. In the context of Paul’s argument of 1 Tim 1:10, this word describes a violation of the moral law of God (“the law is not laid down for the just but for the lawless and disobedient, for … men who practice homosexuality,” 1 Tim 1:9,10 [ESV]). These two words, then, describe activities that are violations of the law of God, that exclude one from the Kingdom, and that are subject to the church’s discipline. Paul understands these two words to describe sin.
Second, Paul understands these two words to describe a particular kind of sexualsin. These two words follow three words, two of which denote immoral sexual offenders (“the sexually immoral … adulterers” [ESV]). The word arsenokoitai follows “the sexual immoral” in Paul’s catalog of sins against the Decalogue in 1 Tim 1:10. The context in which the terms malakoi and arsenokoitai appear together, then, shows that these terms refer to a specific type of sin against the seventh commandment.
Third, these two terms together capture the range of male same-sex activity. Some have argued that Paul is only condemning a particular or narrow kind of homosexual behavior, such as prostitution, pederasty, or rape. On this reading, there is space in Paul’s ethic for non-exploitative homosexual activity between two consenting adults. This view runs aground on Paul’s argument in Rom 1:18-31 and it finds no support from 1 Cor 6:9. For one thing, in Paul’s day, the term malakos had already acquired a technical meaning when it was used in sexual contexts.[2] It denoted the passive partner in male same-sex activity.[3] The term arsenokoitai makes the point particularly clearly. As commentaries frequently note, Paul is the first Greek writer who appears to have used this term. It is a compound formed from two nouns meaning “man” and “bed.” Its origins are not difficult to discover. These two terms appear together in LXX Lev 18:22 and 20:13.[4] In fact, in Lev 20:13 the two component parts of Paul’s new word stand side by side. Both these passages in Leviticus roundly and categorically condemn same-sex activity. This background is important to understand what Paul means by the term arsenokoitai. This word must refer to a wide range of male same-sex activity and may properly be translated “bedders of males, those [men] who take [other] males to bed,” “men who sleep or lie with males.”[5] Since it is paired with the word malakoi, the word arsenokoitai may particularly denote the active partner in male same-sex activity. The two terms, malakoi and arsenokoitai, then, capture, in unqualified and comprehensive fashion, male same-sex activity.
Fourth, Paul is concerned to address sinful sexual behavior in these two terms, but not only such behavior. In Paul’s day, the term malakoi could denote more than just sexual activity. Such persons sometimes “intentionally engage[d] in a process of feminization to erase further their masculine appearance and manner.”[6] That is to say, the word malakos was used to describe “a man who is trying to be a woman,” a man “who significantly blur[s] gender distinctions.”[7] To be sure, Paul’s primary concern in 1 Cor 6:9 is with same-sex behavior. But the apostle is also aware that, in the social context of which he and his readers were part, those who committed themselves to this lifestyle not infrequently blurred the culturally discernible lines between a man and a woman.[8] It is in this sense that one can appreciate the translation “effeminate” for malakoi, even if one opts for another English word that better captures the sense of the Greek word in the context of Paul’s argument.
I think we get the point though. There's more.
Those are all really interesting theories, but the simple matter is that if it was referencing homosexuality, there were plenty of appropriate words Paul could have used.
Specifically, erastes and eromenos.
The words Paul used certainly have sexual connotations, but if he meant gay sex, plenty of words already existed for it.
There's a ton of theories, but no one "knows" exactly what Paul means here. It's a strange word with almost no parallels anywhere else in history.
Why would you trust the Greek translation on that topic? They had a clear bias on the subject that would've influenced word choice.
The New Testament was written in Greek.
The only Hebrew verses that discuss homosexuality are even more vague and difficult to translate.
I'm not trying to convert you or persuade you the Bible is actually pretty cool. I'm just telling you what's in it.
The problem with all of the New Testament and much of the Old Testament is that it has been altered over time again and again. While for some texts in the old bible there is good reason to assume them to be reliable, a lot is not.
Especially the New Testament is clearly a product of trying to mix abrahamic faith with pagan beliefs. You can see this in the concept of trinity and Jesus being the literal son of god. This directly contradicts the commandments given to Moses and Allah has rejected it again in the Quran. Also these concepts were not of the time of Jesus, but developed some hundreds year after. It is also contradictory to much the New Testament says about the life of Jesus, as he was explicit not to speak in his name, but in the name of God.
This is very different to the Quran, where already at the time of revelation much effort was made for preservation in the original form, as well as the life of the prophert Mohammed being documented too.
It also says that mixing meat and dairy is a sin.
The Old Testament says a lot of things; there’s also a New Testament that focuses on Grace and that the most important thing of all is love.
Those who focus on one “sin” over the actual purpose and teachings are those who are focused on hate.
It sounds confusing. How can we be sure which rules are rules and which aren't?
You choose which rules you want to believe in. Some sects follow all of them, some follow none, some follow all the hateful ones, some follow the basic moral tenets. If your sect doesn't care about something, you just kinda pretend it isn't a part of the Bible until it fades into the background. If your sect does care about something, you drag it up as often as you can in sermons to hammer home its importance.
Biblical literalism is an invention of 20th century evangelicalism. It's not because you find one or two verses which seem to condemn something that this thing should be condemned forever; and in the case of homosexuality, the verses used by some Christians to condemn homosexuality aren't clear at all. Thus homophobic Christian bigots condemn homosexuality not because they're Christians, but because they're bigots.
I got the impression it depends on the translation or adaption, and also the culture at the time it was translated or adapted.
The point is projection.
I argue that you are making an asinine general assumption.
The American evangelicals that are screaming about gays and abortions do not represent all Christians. Just as I wouldn’t want everyone outside of the US to judge me by the actions of one American like Donald Trump, it is not right to assume Christian = hateful.
This post serves no purpose. There are better ways to get your fake internet points.
The problem is that all these other Christians spoke out against and fought against this hate. It happens once in awhile, sure, but mostly it is crickets.
That’s less a Christian issue and more a people issue.
“Most people” aren’t the type to speak up. Most people don’t want a lot of attention brought onto them. Most people just want to live their lives, and so you won’t see “most people” doing anything in particular.
No matter what it is, there will be a small populace who are vocal and “most people” will quietly nod or shake their heads. Take even Lemmy. Most people on Lemmy don’t post or even comment. Most users lurk and then some of them might upvote or downvote.
I am willing to speak up and take the brunt of whatever comes to me. Most people, however, are not. A vocal minority are out there screaming hatred, but most people, from all walks of life, are just trying to live and be good to each other.
Proof is in the pudding. Christians literally go door to door trying to convert people. They want to convert people.
But gay or trans people are not out trying to convert others to being gay or trans. Accepting people as gay or trans is just like accepting people as left handed. But some/many Christians think they want to convert people because of projection, see post.
Christians literally go door to door trying to covert people.
That's the problematic statement. You use the word "Christians" to refer to certain American denominations that represent a small fraction of Christians globally. The funny thing is, those denominations were seen by most people in my native country (about 90% Christian population when I was growing up) as heretic sects that should be avoided. I believe that was (and probably still is) the case for most Orthodox or Catholic Christians (who are the vast majority of Christians outside of the US).
The door to door thing might be reserved to some sects, and is absolutely a modern invention.
What isn't is the crusades, where Christianity literally waged war on the world to try and violently convert as many people to it as possible, and once they had enough power from doing that, white and Christian supremacist colonial and imperial missionary work took over, the results of which are ongoing and still felt around the world today (for example and on topic, anti gay attitudes and legislation imposed by colonisers and imperialists on those they were forcing to convert, that still prevail).
And that's without even going in to what the church does and has done to its own people.
So lets not pretend like Christianity is this innocent little lamb that is being wrongly targeted as a dangerous and violent
ideaorganisation that at it's very basis is about converting as many people to it as possible, kind of like a cancer.Can you be a good Christian individually? Sure. Can organised and institutionalised religion be excused for the atrocities it was and still is responsible for (where do you think all the riches of the Vatican come from? God?)? Absolutely not, and by defending it, rather than calling out its faults, you are upholding the status quo instead of investing your energy in to bettering the religion you're obviously so attached to.