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.
Permanently Deleted
Whoo boy…
There is a benefit in considering that all beings have more to us than dust and electricity. There is nothing wrong with teaching spirituality. It can provide comfort, camaraderie, strength, or just peace.
Whether you find peace in the chanting and meditation that can help you possibly achieve nirvana, or you find strength praying in a specific direction several times a day to show your worthiness, there is value in faith and spirituality.
There is absolutely nothing that prevents any spiritual person from learning, understanding, or advocating the sciences.
Looking at the Genesis of the Abrahamic religions, no rational person will say that the “world” and everything in it was created in a 7-day period of time when that which we currently use to measure time wasn’t even part of the structure used to describe the creation of the world. The “day” and “night” were separated before the sun and moon were “created”, so clearly the world wasn’t created in 167 hours. And yet, we can still appreciate what is intended by the scripture without running around and insisting on an impractical interpretation of a text.
You don’t like the Bible? You do you. The Bible says a lot of things. It describes the histories of the things people did, the good, the bad, and the ugly; it also teaches hope and love. It’s a complex set of texts and there’s a reason it’s been analyzed for so many centuries.
It’s great that you don’t need anything other than yourself to drag you out of times of despair. It’s great that you’ve naturally learned to be nice to everyone and treat animals and the earth well. Not everyone is like you, however. Some of us need a little help, and some of us get that help from our spirituality.
My grandmother wasn’t a Christian, and when she was dying, she said she was going to the Ancestors, and she would live on in the winds of the universe. I love this, and I love just thinking about this and thinking that Nana is still within me always in this way. Spirituality has a place. If it’s not for you, it’s not for you, but for some of us, it’s about moving forward with the good that can come out of it.
Maybe if more good people like yourself spoke out against the hateful ones Christianity would attract more people.
I went from having nothing and no one to having a steady family who love and support me
So. Let me tell you a little not-so-secret. That is precisely how I used to get people to convert to Mormonism, when I was a Mormon missionary. The people most vulnerable to conversion were people that were in the middle of shitty life circumstances, and had no social support network. We would love-carpet-bomb them shit out of them; we would talk to them several times a week, we would make sure that member in the local ward--which is the basic congregation for Mormons is called--reached out to them, invite them to church activities to meet people, and would inundate them with religious nonsense. All the while, we were implying that if they were just willing to believe the nonsense, then this large, ready-made family-slash-social-support-network could be theirs. But if they didn't convert, we were going to leave them, and they'd be alone again. Unsurprisingly, this didn't work for shit with people that had large networks and strong families, because they didn't have any need for what we could offer. The people without support would mistake the good feelings about the community for being god telling them that the religious nonsense was true.
And it goes the other way too; the Mormon church keeps people so busy doing church things that Mormons probably won't have any non-Mormon confidants. That, in turn, makes leaving very, very hard.
So, ask yourself, and be honest: would you have converted if you had had strong friends that already loved and supported you? If you had met similarly supportive people that were Muslim, Jewish, or members of the Satanic Temple (and my local TST groups has some pretty great people that are genuinely kind, loving, and open), would you have chosen to convert to Christianity?
For the sake of brevity, I summarized my experience in joining the church, but to answer your question, yes, I would have still joined regardless.
When I said I have “no one”, I was at a place where I felt alone despite being in a “room full of people”. I wasn’t a loner with no friends, but I was spiritually empty and something was missing; I just wasn’t fulfilled.
No one converted me to Christianity, though. No one even asked me to join the church. I felt a “pull”, for lack of a better word and I made the decision to join.
I will say this, however: the black American church is far different from Catholic, Protestant, Southern Baptist, and especially the Mormon church. There’s a completely different style of teaching and worship that is inherently different due to its original purpose and its history. The difference is so drastic that it doesn’t surprise me that people become agnostic or atheist after coming up in those environments because - at least from my own observations - the worship is so structured that it loses value and the teachings don’t appear to be as applicable to a modern age. Again, just my observation.
So, to reiterate, I turned from my deep agnosticism to Christianity on my own. I’m fully aware of the concept of “You are not immune to propaganda”. I’m also not ignorant of the deficiencies in the church. I happen to be relatively fortunate in my church. There are still some black churches who will make a girl who gets pregnant stand up in front of the congregation and apologize for what she’s done. There are many black churches that will outwardly admonish gays, while the pastor is having an affair with the choir director. The best I can do there is not affiliate and remain vocal about why I won’t.
My old pastor once laid out an edict that his lady ushers all had to wear skirts or dresses when they ushered. I ushered at the time and wore a nice pant suit, and so when he said that, I sat down. He eventually asked my why I stopped ushering and I told him, that he’s free to run his church how he sees fit, but I don’t have to participate where he’s laying down sexist rules that don’t align with the Word. Shortly afterward, he lifted the rule.
I provide the above story to highlight my experience with my faith. The way I see it, just because some people want to distort and misuse the Bible and Christianity, doesn’t mean that there isn’t any good within it. I’ve read the Bible; I’ve taught it, I’ve questioned it. I find the ironies fascinating, like the idea that God thought of David as a man after His own heart, when this is the same David who had an affair with his best friend and top general’s wife, and then had his friend killed when it became apparent that he wouldn’t be able to conceal the affair. This act doesn’t negate all of David’s writings, however.
Faith is complicated, and it should be adaptable, but let me reassure you that I wasn’t “taken in” by proselytizing Christians. I felt a need for more and I made the willful step to learn, to understand, and thoroughly appreciate what I accepted as my faith.
The post would be more accurate if it was targeting Mormons, as they're literally door knockers. However Christians do have a very well documented and prolific history of traveling and attempting to convert others. They are especially known for
prayingpreying on the less fortunate and taking advantage of people who lack basic necessities You're in denial if you're attempting to claim otherwise.praying
Pun intended? They prey on the vulnerable as they pray.
Lol a Freudian slip I assume. I corrected it
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.
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.
I got the impression it depends on the translation or adaption, and also the culture at the time it was translated or adapted.
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.
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.
If the Bible is the immutable word of your god, then what sense does it make to be able to cherry pick what parts to follow and what not to?
It’s not the Bible that’s the issue, but our current understanding of it.
The Bible is generally broken into the laws, the histories, the lamentations, and words of promise all in the Old Testament and then the words and actions of Jesus and His followers in the New Testament.
For Christians, the laws aren’t so much hard laws as much as they are “Tips for a Better Life, featuring the Prequel Stories”. The New Testament is what makes Christianity, and those texts primarily focus on the Grace of God, which is - hastily summarizing here - “All ‘sin’ requires the shedding blood, but I’ve already done that and forgiven everything, so just do your best”.
Different gospels say different things about the same events. Different letters are written to different ancient churches by different people about many different issues. Different texts and histories are included or discarded dependent upon how any particular sect of Christianity worships. The Bible is a collection of the words of people who are driven by God for their purpose at their time, and so it is always going to be subject to adaptable understandings.
All this is because mortal, imperfect people are in charge of interpreting, translating, and communicating the words of an entity that “exists” outside the confines of matter, energy, space, or time. As time continues, our understanding of the word adapts and changes.
This sounds like a great argument for not taking anything the Bible says seriously at all.
There’s nothing that forces you to take anything spiritual “seriously”. It’s up to you to make that decision for yourself.
The Bible says you should, and most churches say you should.
Or seriously enough to think about it, not just swallow everything. Christianity is a religion who praised critical thinking for centuries because the Bible is a book which should be studied. It was written by intelligent people who made a point to let contradictions and diverse points of view in order to let the reader decide.
The Bible isn't the immutable word of God. The Word of God is Jesus-Christ. That's what taught Christianity for 19 centuries before American evangelicalism invented the heresy of biblical inerrancy.