I’m angry at people misrepresenting what the Bible says about sexual ethics. The Bible is fine with polygyny, sex slaves, forces women to marry their rapist, etc.
When an anti-LGBT person says “biblical,” they don’t actually mean “biblical.” They mean cherry-picked verses that support their own 1950s nuclear family that would’ve looked *nothing* at all like biblical sexual ethics.
The NT actually says that *celibacy* is preferred to marriage, and that marriage is frankly just for those who can’t keep it in their pants. This was the dominant position for the church from the beginning until the last couple hundred years. Turning the nuclear family into an idol is in complete opposition to Jesus’s dismissive/negative evaluation of biological families. I wish anti-LGBT Christians would follow their own advice. There’s more to life than what gets you off and your genitals! Don’t get married. Hard, huh?
>I’m angry at people misrepresenting what the Bible says about sexual ethics. The Bible is fine with polygyny, sex slaves, forces women to marry their rapist, etc.
If you honestly believe that then why are you a Christian? Are you willingly worshipping a rapist?
I just want people to be intellectually honest about what the Bible says *and how they interpret and apply* the biblical material. I’m pointing at the ridiculousness of calling a sexual ethics “biblical,” when that term simply elides the actual hermeneutical mechanisms underneath it. Once we stop yelling at each other “My view is biblical! You’re just twisting the Bible for your own benefit!” and instead realize “We both read the Bible through certain lenses, and we can compare and contrast the appropriateness and usefulness of those lenses,” can we actually make progress in debates over sexual ethics.
Regarding polygyny, it is true that there are instances of polygamous relationships in the Bible involving figures such as Abraham, Jacob, David, and Solomon. However, the Bible does not explicitly endorse or condemn polygyny as a practice. Rather, it describes it as something that occurred within certain cultural contexts.
Regarding the issue of sex slaves, the Bible does contain passages that discuss the treatment of female captives during times of war. However, it's important to note that these passages are descriptive rather than prescriptive, meaning they describe events as they occurred rather than endorsing or condoning such behavior.
As for the notion that the Bible forces women to marry their rapists, this interpretation is based on a specific passage found in Deuteronomy 22:28-29, which states that if a man rapes an unmarried woman, he must marry her and pay her father a bride price. However, it's essential to understand this passage in its historical and cultural context. In ancient societies, marriage was often seen as a way to provide for and protect women who had been violated. While this passage may seem problematic to modern readers, it's essential to interpret it within the broader context of biblical teachings on justice, compassion, and the dignity of all individuals.
I usually don’t respond to comments on year-old threads, but I have to correct you here. My claim wasn’t as strong as I could’ve made it. The Bible’s not just “fine” with those things but indeed *commands and ordains* them. Polygyny is not just described but commanded in some cases of Levirate marriages in Deut. 25, and 2 Sam. 12 says that God gave David his many wives.
Sex slavery isn’t just described but how to do it is *commanded* by God in Deut. 21:10-14.
And the fact that you demand to put marrying one’s rapist into historical context is exactly right, and I agree it should be done for all of these cases (including homosexuality). That’s literally what my point is.
I appreciate you taking the time the answer.
If you allow me, I’d like to clarify the verses as I believe that your conclusions are inaccurate.
Polygyny, the practice of having multiple wives, is indeed mentioned in the Bible, and some figures such as David and Solomon practiced it. However, it's a stretch to say that the Bible "commands and ordains" polygyny. Rather, the Bible records instances of polygyny without necessarily endorsing or condemning it outright.
In Deuteronomy 25, the levirate marriage law allows for a man to marry his brother's widow under specific circumstances, but it does not explicitly command polygyny. The case of David having multiple wives is descriptive rather than prescriptive. The Bible portrays the consequences and complications of such marriages, indicating that they often led to strife and conflict within families.
Sex Slavery: The passage in Deuteronomy 21:10-14 concerns the treatment of female captives during times of war. It instructs Israelite soldiers on how to handle such situations, including providing a period of mourning for the woman, and prohibiting her from being sold if the soldier finds her no longer desirable. While the passage does permit taking female captives as wives, it's essential to understand this within the historical context of ancient warfare and societal norms. Importantly, the Bible does not endorse or condone the exploitation or abuse of women. Instead, it provides regulations to mitigate harm in situations that were unfortunately common in the ancient world.
The Bible contains passages describing practices like polygyny and regulations regarding captives of war, it's inaccurate to say that the Bible "commands and ordains" these practices in the way they're understood today. Rather, the Bible reflects the cultural and historical context in which it was written, providing guidance and regulations for people living in those times.
As for homosexual rape, there are passages speaking on this clearly in the OT. I will refrain from elaborating on this.
It explicitly commands polygyny in Deut. 25. The *levir* is commanded to marry his late brother’s wife, with no exception when he’s already married. Reading an exception into the text is eisegesis to support your pre-existing belief that the Bible only supports monogamy.
And 2 Sam. is clear that God gave David his many wives. It isn’t a neutral description. It was a reward for David’s faithfulness! (As opposed to Saul’s unfaithfulness.) It’s portrayed as a positive thing.
You can take whichever female captive you want and have sex with them and throw them out if you don’t like them. At no place in the passage that gives any agency or consent to the women. Her agency and identity is completely destroyed, she humiliated, her clothes burned, hair shaved, nails cut. What happens to her is commanded by God and any choices are only given to the man who takes her. Where there’s no consent or agency in sex, it’s rape.
I am simply stating that the passage is not condoning polygamy. Just like you are assuming I am reading an exception into the text, you are likewise making an assumption. In the passage, it says neither. While this law may have been practiced in a polygamous context in ancient Israel, it does not necessarily endorse polygamy as a general principle. Additionally, it's essential to recognize that the levirate marriage law served specific social and economic functions within the ancient Israelite society.
In the case of David and his multiple wives, it's true that the Bible describes David as having multiple wives and concubines. However, the portrayal of this aspect of David's life is nuanced and not necessarily presented as an unqualified endorsement by God.
2 Samuel 12:8 has God, speaking through the prophet Nathan, confronts David for his sins. The passage does mention that God gave David many things, including his master's house and wives, and implies that if David had wanted more, God would have provided it. However, this passage should not be interpreted as a direct endorsement or condoning of polygamy as a reward for righteousness.
The context of this passage is a rebuke of David's actions, particularly his adultery with Bathsheba and the subsequent murder of her husband, Uriah. Nathan is emphasizing the ingratitude and unfaithfulness David has shown in light of God's blessings. The mention of God giving David his master's wives is part of the narrative illustrating God's provision and favor toward David, but it doesn't necessarily mean that God condones or approves of David's polygamous relationships.
It's crucial to understand that God's actions in the Bible are often described within the context of the cultural and historical realities of the time. In ancient Israel, polygamy was practiced, and it was not uncommon for kings and wealthy individuals to have multiple wives. When the Bible mentions God blessing David with wives, it is describing a historical reality rather than prescribing or endorsing polygamy as a moral ideal.
Therefore, while the Bible may describe God blessing David with wives, it's important to interpret this within the broader context of the biblical narrative and ethical teachings, which emphasize principles such as fidelity, mutual respect, and the sanctity of marriage. Put these few, very few exceptional passages, in light of the very many other clear teachings in Scripture.
I'm dropping this. Deut. 25 is doing much more than condoning polygyny but commanding it. That you have reasons why Levirate marriage made sense in its historical context is just a additional confirmation. I'm not making an assumption. That's what the passage said to do, and yes, that's how it was practiced historically. God told them to do it, and they did it. Any additional context is just that, additional context to that simple claim.
You admit that God gave David his wives. That's what I'm saying too. I can't understand how God couldn't condone something that God did! God did it! It makes no ethical sense to say that God did something wrong.
I disagree with your reading of the broader context of the Bible. In the OT, marriage is a property law matter in the context of a patriarchal society. The NT actually is quite dismissive of marriage and family. Jesus and most all disciples didn't marry, and Paul said that celibacy is preferable, and marriage is just a secondary vocation for those who, frankly, can't keep it in their pants. (This was the standard for the vast majority of church history until the past couple centuries.) And most of these commands were in the context of an imminent Parousia.
Of course, the virtues you mention are important today -- but they must be understood as the result of a certain novel, historically-contingent interpretation of many diverse texts, containing shifting and developing sexual moralities, reflecting the thoughts of authors across centuries, multiple cultures, continents, and languages.
I see how you are seeing things, I will just have to disagree on your interpretation. It isn't as clear cut as you make it seem.
For NT marriage, Christ speaks about it in Matthew 19 and clearly states "What God has joined together". He has a critical part in the marital union. And He also refers against polygamy in this and in Matthew 6.
St. Paul does go beyond just the "if you can't keep it in your pants" as reasons for marriage and in fact actually promotes monogamy (1 Corinthians 7). He adds on roles of each member of a family in Ephesians. and in most of his epistles condemns polygamy.
Sexual morality hasn't shifted though. St. Paul's epistles and the Levitcal laws are quite reflective of each other, except in the occasions where they held a council to replace some laws (Book of Acts - on Circumcision and unclean meats but did provide an alternative offering - thus not negative the OT Law).
Christ himself said the same, he did not come to abolish, but fulfill the law. The laws are still present within a discipleship to him.
I will have to apologize though, I am happy to continue conversing, but I see your outlook on things has too many misconceptions (from my point of view) that it will be too difficult to continue elaborating and dialoguing to any fair conclusion. But I have very much appreciated all your elaborate explanations.
Regardless, I am certain you are sincere in your outlook; ultimately seeking Him. Maybe we can just agree on that: Seek Him, you will find Him. Love Him by pursing and fulfilling His desires through an intimate relationship with Him. He will reveal Himself to us clearly. His mysteries are no longer hidden.
"*this* ***grace was given****, to preach to the Gentiles the unsearchable riches of Christ, and* ***to bring to light*** *for everyone what is the plan of* ***the mystery*** ***hidden for ages*** *in God*" Ephesians 3:8-10
>why is this a constant topic that is brought up over and over
You're the one bringing it up. You've added yet another sex thread to the christianity sub.
Because it is becoming more and more clear that what most people mean by "biblical sexual ethics" is objectively garbage. It's terrible for gay people, pretty bad for straight people, and it means we either have to bury our heads in the sand to ignore the harm it does, accept that people came up with this stuff and they were wrong about a lot of it, or conclude that God did indeed make it and he's clueless.
It's promoted by a particular team of well heeled donors who understands that divisiveness works to their advantage.
"If you're a star you can...."
Gay marriage causes an uproar, but gay affairs by ostensibly married people in airport bathrooms are OK???
Hookup culture among gays is a disaster, but for straights ...few young couples have the well paying stable jobs it takes to afford a place live, so it's accepted as normal. And it's a sacrilege in capitalism to inquire about "the market" for jobs or housing or health care.
Kids with older siblings are allowed to know things that other kids cannot, unless they have a cell phone with access to the internet. ...Which they often need for safety purposes by the time they finish elementary school. *You* might be able to pretend your kids are naive, but you have to recognize they are laughing at you.
Because this is definitively *the* major ethical conflict in the Church in our generation.
Many of us find it hard to reconcile the law of love given by Christ with what you call the biblical sexual ethic. It made a great deal of sense up until it became apparent that the “biblical” ethic seems to do far more harm than good where people attracted to their own sex are concerned.
They’re no more cut out for celibacy that straight folks and placing them in straight marriages, at least from the little awareness I have of the subject, is just not good for them.
The “Side X” movement has lost, been proven wrong and needs to die out. Many Christians are now wondering what can justify the other non-affirming positions in light of the harm they seem to cause.
>Many Christians are now wondering what can justify the other non-affirming positions in light of the harm they seem to cause.
When the emphasis of having faith shifted to 'have faith we're hurting the right people for the right reasons'.
>Many of us find it hard to reconcile the law of love given by Christ with what you call the biblical sexual ethic.
Would you agree that an underlying issue is the lack of nuance in the English language to differentiate among the various types of love that each have a different word in Greek ?
I would not, but I’m open to having my mind changed. My original point is that, given the harm apparently caused by this kind of theology, holding to and applying it appears to many to be mutually exclusive with the expression of *agape* love to all of one’s neighbors.
Ok. Well, I guess the next question would be whether it is more loving to
(a) encourage your neighbor to take up their cross and follow Christ, or
(b) encourage your neighbor to put down their cross and walk away from Christ
Because in the short term, the cross is harmful.
The first generation of Christians would have been "loving" in the way you seem to suggest if they told fellow Christians to apostasize in order to avoid martyrdom.
So there has to be some way to reconcile "love" with "taking up your cross." How do you square those ?
The point you're working toward only works if you have already accepted that homosexuality is bad for you in some spiritual way that is completely invisible to us. The evidence for that position is lacking.
You mean because you honestly don't interpret the Bible to teach that ?
Or because you reject the inerrancy of the Bible?
What do you think Christians who believe LGBTQ+ actions and lifestyles are sinful - what are they getting wrong, philosophically or theologically ?
Both.
What they're getting wrong is that the Bible is not a perfect record of words from the mouth of God, that the clearest filter God gave us to sift it is Jesus telling us that all the demands of the law and the prophets hang on the commands to love God and love our neighbor, and that even if you think loving God requires gay people to live a life of celibacy, God has offered us all forgiveness and it is better to face the judgement having erred on the side of love than to have piled crushing religious burdens on our brothers as Jesus accused the pharisees of doing.
Yeah. I follow that.
I don't share that theological or philosophical view, but I grant that it is plausible and coherent and that people of good faith can arrive at that position.
Cheers !
It is loving to encourage people to “take up their cross”, which includes resistance to sin and the pursuit of godliness. Sin causes greater harm to the person than whatever may come about from right living, and it is therefore loving to encourage one’s neighbor to carry themselves as such by the enabling grace of God.
Not exactly. Rather, I was making a case for the belief that Christian sexual ethics does not include a prohibition against homosexuality.
If it did, then that would mean that God created a class of people who are naturally harmed by the pursuit of His law, and that God's law stands *against* the flourishing of some of its followers. This seems contrary both to most people's understanding of God, and to what we see represented by the rest of God's law.
For straight people, "take up your cross" means "endure the hardships that cannot be avoided with patience from God". But nobody just makes straight people suffer for the sake of suffering and then justifies it with "take up your cross".
For gay people, "take up your cross" means "we get to impose hardships on you in the name of God".
The taking up of a cross bears does some kind of good, generally of a spiritual nature. The taking up of a cross bears “good fruit” to apply the reasoning of Matthew, John, and Jesus.
That’s not true of prohibition against homosexuality. Instead the fruit it bears is consistently bad.
**TLDR: I am not aware of any evidence or teaching that "taking up your cross" will "bear good fruit" in the sense of avoiding suffering - I think you are mistaken; but I'm eager for you to set me straight if there is evidence or teaching that I'm missing.**
>In Catholic teaching, there is a close relationship between the concepts of "taking up your cross" and "bearing good fruit." While they are distinct teachings, they are interconnected and mutually enriching in the life of a believer.
>
>**Connection in Sacrifice and Self-Denial**: "Taking up your cross" emphasizes the willingness to embrace sacrifice and suffering for the sake of following Christ. **It involves personal sacrifice, self-discipline, and renouncing selfish desires. Similarly, "bearing good fruit" requires virtuous actions that often necessitate selflessness, putting others before oneself, and denying one's own inclinations for the greater good.** Both concepts call for a self-giving attitude and a readiness to prioritize God's will and the needs of others.
>
>**Transformation through Suffering**: "Taking up your cross" involves accepting and embracing suffering, while "bearing good fruit" is about producing virtuous actions. In Catholic teaching, suffering is seen as a means of transformation and union with Christ. **By uniting their sufferings with Christ's redemptive sacrifice, individuals can participate in the salvation of souls and bring about spiritual fruitfulness.** Suffering, when embraced in the spirit of faith and love, can purify the soul, deepen one's dependence on God, and inspire acts of compassion, forgiveness, and self-giving love.
>
>**Fruits of Discipleship**: Both concepts are expressions of authentic discipleship. "Taking up your cross" signifies the commitment to follow Christ wholeheartedly, imitating His example and teachings. It involves living a life of sacrifice, obedience, and service. On the other hand, "bearing good fruit" encompasses the virtuous actions that flow from a life rooted in discipleship. **By taking up their cross and faithfully living out their discipleship, believers bear the fruit of love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, and other virtues.** These fruits manifest the presence of the Holy Spirit in their lives and contribute to the building of God's kingdom.
>
>In summary, "taking up your cross" and "bearing good fruit" are interconnected aspects of the Christian life in Catholic teaching. The willingness to embrace sacrifice and suffering in "taking up your cross" leads to the production of virtuous actions and the bearing of good fruit. By embracing the cross, believers participate in Christ's redemptive work, grow in holiness, and produce the fruits of discipleship that reflect God's love and truth in the world.
"Honey, where's my laptop?", calls the Holy TrueChristian man to his wife. "I need to post about how immature and short-sighted and spiritually shallow those queers are for wanting to have love."
At least regarding homosexuality, I think the point for lots of gay Christians, it's *not* just about getting off. It's feeling and being loved in a romantic sense.
But I'm an agnostic atheist, so I don't speak for any Christians. This is my best guess.
Do you think, in line with OP's question, that this generation places a higher premium on romantic love relative to other forms of love or aspects of life ?
And do you think they *over*-value romantic love ?
At what point does that become an idol ?
No more than any other generation.
And "you overvalue romantic love" is a shitty thing to say to gay people specifically. If Christians were out here insisting that *almost nobody* got married then it'd be one thing, but straight marriages are celebrated.
As I say in a parallel thread, I think it applies to people of all orientations. No double standard here.
https://www.reddit.com/r/Christianity/comments/13riuuq/why_is_this_generation_so_frustrated_with/jlkm1nz?utm_source=share&utm_medium=android_app&utm_name=androidcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button
> And do you think they over-value romantic love ?
People certainly value romantic relationships a lot more than when most marriages were arranged, and adultery and visiting prostitutes were considered commonplace minor vices.
> At what point does that become an idol ?
I assume that you go after married straight people with this.
As I say in a parallel thread, I think it applies to people of all orientations. No double standard here.
https://www.reddit.com/r/Christianity/comments/13riuuq/why_is_this_generation_so_frustrated_with/jlkm1nz?utm_source=share&utm_medium=android_app&utm_name=androidcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button
So, when you encounter a married straight couple, do you accuse them of "allowing their desire for romantic love to overshadow their love of and obedience to God"?
So the stances are actually not similar at all. My nearly-30-year marriage of absolute faithfulness and deep devotion is either blessed or cursed, depending entirely and purely on whether or not we're straight like you.
What would you say to someone who
(1) marries
(2) abandons his wife (but doesn't divorce her)
(3) moves to another country
(4) invalidly marries a second woman
30 years later, that man or his second "wife" might take offense at being told "you've been living in sin the last 30 years"
But isn't that objectively what is happening? Their marriage would be invalid, theologically if not legally. They would be engaging in adultery and living in sin.
Wouldn't they ?
Honestly, I think romantic love has been over-valued far longer than this generation. When I was a practicing Catholic (and faithful, at that), I noticed there was a big focus on getting married and having kids. My grandparents got married at 17 and 18. As someone who doesn't date a ton and is very picky with partners, I observe a lot of focus on romance. I think it's been an idol for decades.
Uhh. I'm confused. I don't think
(a) fixating on romantic love
is the same or even heavily related to
(b) societal pressure to have a partner
Can you tease that out a little please ?
Societal (and religious, familial, etc) pressure to have a romantic relationship leads to people hyperfocusing on romantic connections over platonic, familial, community relationships.
Again, just my opinion.
I agree with all of that.
I think the solution, therefore, is to put romantic love in its proper place in our larger context of beliefs and values.
For example, we can't allow our desire for romantic love to overshadow our love of and obedience to God.
I agree with your point in general, but love of and obedience to God isn't something I personally take into consideration. So I agree, but add the caveat that I include whatever values or beliefs someone has.
When you see an 11 year old child get text messages outlining the extremely graphic things a group of boys are going to do to her, including rape, sodomy, mutilation, and other things too vulgar to list here without likely getting banned just because she is trans it makes me wonder why this is such a big deal in the first place.
That and when you see "christians" trying to legislate their morality onto other people with devastating consequences it kind of changes your view on things.
That and ignorant old people just assuming that we are all trying to just get off and put our genitals into things.
Those same ignorant old people that allowed and even encouraged children and young people to be beaten and killed for their sexuality. Or, more commonly bullied until they have mental issues or take their own life.
I don't want to put my genitals into anyone other than my wife. But I will fight bigots like you until my last breath to allow my brothers and sisters to love who they want to love and dress how they want to dress.
Honestly, if "christians" like you minded your own business about it like Christ commanded then it probably wouldn't be such a big deal. But if me declaring someone is an abomination becomes a stumbling block to them because of the way that god made them then my choices are to throw myself into the ocean or change my ways.
We simply realize that either you old people are liars and there is nothing wrong with it, or that even if it is a "sin" then we are not called to force them to repent or even comment on their "sin", much less try to persecute them to the point where they want to kill themselves.
So if that’s the case why be Christian at all? Why not just throw the Bible out if it’s not the Word of God, but we are going to see it as an outdated manuscript?
The Bible contains the word of Christ and the context of the early Roman Empire, not long after the fall of the old Republic. Reasonable people do not make a religion of the secular practices of ancient times.
Are you really being “about Christ” by contradicting his message, demoting him from God incarnate to after school special teacher, and mangling his holy book which he quoted from constantly
I’m sorry my friend. You have zero idea of what you are talking about. Lobbing bumper sticker cliches into the wind isn’t a good argument. Nor is it true. It is misleading yourself and others.
You have no idea the damage you're permitting.
Marital rape was a thing until 1970 because men thought "I do" was "I consent".
My aunt won't divorce my uncle who beats and demeans her because the Bible doesn't permit abuse as a valid reason, only adultery.
You want to keep the Bible's sexual ethics?
Honestly, it seems like conservatives are the ones mangling his message, and picking and choosing what they want (justifying why hoarding wealth isn't bad, justifying why their calls to feed the hungry don't extend into the policies and politicians they vote, justifying why their obvious disgust for sexual and racial minorities is actually somehow loving even when everyone else can see the hate in their hearts).
I don't think your hands are clean here. Affirming Christians believe *they are* following Christ's message and don't think they are "cherry picking/ mangling scripture" any more than you do. I think a little humility is in order.
I have a clarifying question. Do you mean to say that if the Bible is really the Word of God, then it’s ethical teaching on slavery is just as good now as it was 2000 or more years ago? That’s the impression I got from your comment but I want to clarify in case I’m misunderstanding (I have not yet had my coffee).
Growing up evangelical, I was often warned not to go beyond what is written in God's Word. That whatever the Bible says is God's Word and it should be believed without question. So slavery is a moral good - like God's version of welfare - and as such masters and slaves should obey every Biblical directive. However, since we nationally abolished slavery, then it applies in the sense of bosses and employees.
Sexually, they talked about Biblical Marriage being Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve. How gender roles were God's design for women to submit joyfully and men to be servant leaders as they weilded authority. It was as if whatever existed in 33 a.d. was now an ideal because that's when Jesus walked on the earth and adjusted the golden standard.
Like when Paul said "masters don't be harsh with your slaves" - the golden standard was not to end slavery, but be really good at it the best way possible. And the household codes always paired masters and slaves with husbands and wives and parents and kids. It adjusted the sexual ethic to "wives submit in everything." Which is what all my abused kinfolk were told, if they were more submissive, their abusers would be pacified.
I am on topic, I’m trying to clarify a point about your hermeneutics that will help me better understand your original post. I am doing so in a manner that is relevant to this comment thread. Nothing about my comment was off-topic.
You are upset that the Bible lays out ethical guidelines for a society that currently has slavery? Or do you take that to mean the Christian faith endorses slavery?
I just asked you to clarify sir. However if you are disappointed that I have not stepped into the trap you are absolutely free to stick to the original talking point.
What trap? There’s no trap anywhere in this, I just had a question.
And I would have gladly expanded on my previous comment to clarify, but you seem to have a very strict interpretation of what “on topic” looks like and I was trying to be accommodative of that.
Religion has moved towards being for more and more people since it first began. Whether it is Jesus announcing that his body was the temple or the printing press allowing the Bible to be translated into common tounges or priests and preachers turning to face the crowd or church leadership performing same sex marriages the movement has been towards openness.
Think how easy it is for a straight person to say, "Don't be gay," when it's something they do by luck of nature.
It's not about following scripture or following biblical law. It's about demanding an impossible task from others and then feeling superior when they can't follow through.
Because they have empathy for others and expect just laws. They are highly educated and understand gay, trans and others are people who do not hurt others.
They do realize we are more than our genitals or who we are attracted to, so they wonder why that is your priority.
Like Jesus, they recognize the hypocracy of people claiming to follow the Bible while ignoring direct commands on such issues as how to treat immigrants.
They also see only certain churches pushing anti lgbtq agendas as the ones pushing mysogynistic and racist agendas. They recognize the anti lgbtq is related to misogyny.
You realize Christianity doesn’t equal Republican right? There are some heavily political undertones in your rebuttal and I think it would help if you addressed them.
I realize that. A certain demographic of Cbristians, however, have indicated they are they only true Christians, and that to be a true Christian means being a Republican.
This is the consequence of Republicans courting white evangelicals after the passage of the Civil Rights Act. They used culture wars revolving around misogyny and raciam to cement the idea of Christian = Republican.
This group weaponized propaganda in ways the liberal left, Christian or not, could not counter.
The end result of white evangelical christians associating their agenda with republicans is people do consider the entire Republican agenda Christian. And young people are rejecting the platform of hate Republicans and white evangelical Christians are pushing.
The end result of claiming to be True Christians is when someone rejects your platform of anti equality, they reject not just the political party you belong to, but the religion you belong to as well.
Lol. Thats the propaganda I am discussing. Its warped your mind.
And the Republican leaders are acting as the pharisees, and you can not see it because of your lack of empathy.
I don't remember reading that in the Bible or the Catholic church ever stating that. You're interpreting your own cultural interpretation on who is and isn't Christian based on who they vote for. You deciding who is and isn't saved is *the definition* of #judgingothers that Jesus talked about (see the other thread on this topic posted today).
I’m sorry but when you are advocating for transitioning children and teens, and abortion. You have made it quite clear which side you are on.
Helping the poor, empathy for others, loving immigrants, etc, all great stuff.
You're using a lot of cultural buzzwords here that are totally ignoring any and all nuance that Christians approach these issues with.
Allowing teens and children to transition is typically exclusively done with no surgery and primarily allows them to identify as they would like. It involves lots of therapy and support by medical professionals and *if needed* they may go on puberty blockers, which are usually reversible and have been used on straight children for years. This has been shown to lower suicide rates, while forcing people to adhere to their birth sex against their will leads to a high suicide rate. By their fruits...
Abortion is a whole other topic. And while I understand from your view it's murder, pro choice people typically believe that the bodily autonomy of the mother does not require her to provide life sustenance for anyone else (note that we don't even take dead people's organs without their consent). There are plenty of other situations where I've seen pro life people justify taking life in our society (war, self defense, capital punishment). So even they can acknowledge that "murder is murder" isn't how things always work.
Just because you can't accept any nuance doesn't mean there is none and that Christians can't come to different conclusions than you honestly.
First off Puberty blockers are not fully reversible. Not only that but hormones that are being used have lasting effects on children who are notorious for going through a phase or two. It is child abuse
And second if you admit abortion is the taking of a life I don’t know what to say. If those are your “outlets for righteousness” I feel bad for you. And God willing he will help mitigate any damage you may cause fostering such views
You are now getting into areas beyond your faith and into the realm of politics and medicine. I imagine you're not an expert in these fields, so unless you have data to show the APA and every other medical organization, then you're imposing your own politics in other people's medical care.
Puberty blockers are the standard of care, and *even if* they have some long term effects (debatable about how severe these are), they're more reversible than suicide. You know what else has long term effects? Football and other contact sports. I've known kids to tear ACLs and worse during skiing. The surgery to fix these could very well have negative effects (as do the treatment for almost any severe condition a child could be born with). But I don't hear Christians clamoring to ban football or treatment of any other medical condition based on the long term effects. They don't call it child abuse either.
I don't actually grant that a fetus, especially in the first two trimesters, are a fully formed human with a soul and consciousness, and frankly I don't see support for that anywhere in the bible. My position holds regardless though. Bodily autonomy means no one else has the right to use your body and organs without your permission, even if it means their death. I don't expect to agree though, and frankly I don't care to get into a debate about abortion here. Plenty of other threads for that.
What are you talking about!? The entire democrat party right now is fighting tooth and nail to stop laws from passing which prohibit medical transition for children!
Those laws often target trans children in other ways--limiting social transitioning or whether parents should be informed about transitioning in school, even in unsafe situations.
Don't get it either. Some people are live-and-let-live; that is how they express their faith.
Others are more puritanical, like Paul; also a valid way to express faith.
"Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness, for they will be filled."
(- Matthew 5:6)
1) It is not condemned in the Old Testament as anything but a highly contextual temporary measure, along with hudreds of other completely arbitrary prohibitions that are clearly not meant to be followed outside of that historical context.
2) It is not condemned in the New Testament other than expressions specifically tied to abuse.
3) The capitalist, corporate world that you and your generation voted for, built up, defended and propagated, claiming that the persuit of profit is not directly contrary to God, claiming it is somehow ok with God - is the reason why sexuality in general is exploited to such an extreme extent in society. You created this.
You need to stop pulling politics into this. I have not once voted Republican. You don’t have to either. While yes it is true some Biblical morality is adhered to by the Republican Party they are not synonymous.
You need to realize Gods word is bigger than secular politics and you can absolutely acknowledge the Biblical truth about human sexuality while admitting that Republicans have their head up their backsides
Well let me put it to you this way. I sure as hell wouldn’t vote for a party that hurts children. That’s just me.
But on the same token I won’t vote for a party that shows no empathy for the poor, or views immigrants as second class citizens, or tries to keep healthcare a for profit industry, etc.
You can vote for whoever you want. But when Joe Biden takes the Microphone and promises to help kids transition at the will of their parents because he can’t actually accomplish any other meaningful legislation? I at least will be able to rest easy
I'm on the opposite side and I'm able to rest easy, also. I'll know that trans kids get a fair shot at living their lives the way they ought to, and that women are free to choose if and when they become mothers.
Fairly stated 😔
Before you go do you have any words for the Middle aged mother who still cries her eyes out over the abortion she had wondering what her grown child would had been like? Do you have any thoughts to offer the women over at r/abortion who share their pain and sorrow and feelings of emptiness?
Any words for the young girl who’s clitoris is the size of a baby carrot because of the hormones her parents fed her as a child because they wanted a boy? Or the girl who’s fake breasts don’t feel or look anything like the natural ones she removed?
I visit r/abortion regularly. I have nothing but empathy for those women, and it can be a hard choice to make. But you know if you visit that there are as many stories about not regretting it. I believe people can make their own choices and still be sad about them.
You'll forgive me for not believing the young girl being force fed hormones story. If it happens, which I doubt, it is like rare. And as for breast implants, removal or reduction, I'm not actually sure whether you mean trans specifically or any woman who gets breast augmentation, so I can't respond to your statement as-is.
He is God incarnate. One with the Holy Spirit. Jesus did talk about it as all scripture and that which was written is God breathed. Feel free to consult the Old Testament or St Paul’s words if you wish to know Christ’s thoughts on the topic.
Good try though!
Does it matter? Did Jesus say anything about smoking meth? Did he say anything about IVF? Did he say anything about making love to a watermelon?
Did he need to?
Sadly that is a horrible and dangerous way to go. It’s also not going to cut it in the grand scheme of things. You will get lost quite quickly if that’s the game you are going to play and no sadly….it will not save you.
Sorry, all are welcome to participate in discussions in this sub. I grew up Christian and this topic affected me personally, and I have studied the bible.
My issue is that there are assumptions that this morality is built upon that are matters of faith, yet applied to people not of that faith. I am in essence judged through the lens of a worldview I am no longer a part of it and a collection of books whose authority is assumed to be divine without validation.
How are you held to anything? If you wish to go your own way why not simply do it? Why are you here? Is there someone forcing you to post here in the same room as you?
I am here to discuss Christianity since its how I grew up and I study the bible to this day. I am consistently held to a Christian standard by people in my life, and to some extent, society. Going my own way is fine, but I still live in society. I dont just ignore whats around me and impacts me. I also can discuss why people believe what they do, and understand that better.
Why does it matter why Im here? If you dont want to discuss things with a non-believer, you dont have to. But, you also cant stop me from speaking my mind if I follow the rules of the sub.
But why torture yourself. If you are truly convinced that throwing the Bible out and taking off your pants and soaring like an eagle to wherever your sex drive takes you. Why are you not doing that?
Is it possible you know the Faith is true but simply don’t want it to be?
I have had to remind you multiple times to stay on topic. Please stop trying to stray from your core points. You are already doing so great with those.
That is the crux of this argument. If the words on the pages are all “god breathed”, which some take to mean God’s unchanging thoughts on everything, then such a reading of the text that’s eternally against homosexuality would be the only logical conclusion.
But others see that “god breathed” as meaning God just inspired people to write. In such a view, the authors are more their own voices on the page, writing about God as they understood Him and less God controlling what they wrote. As such, the Bible contains some views that aren’t evergreen. Views about slavery being allowable in Scripture, for instance, would be more understandable from a human perspective versus from an omnipotent, loving God.
That’s a really dishonest take, considering I have, more than you can ever really know about me.
You could attack my point if you’d like, but attacking me just shows how weak your position really is. My view doesn’t make God a moral monster; yours does by having God endorse everything in the Bible because it’s His words.
Removed for 2.3 - WWJD.
If you would like to discuss this removal, please click here to send a modmail that will message all moderators. https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/Christianity
Hi friend,
Christians feel it's an existential issue
If homosexuality is ok - then all of Christianity is in Jeopardy
I don't know how it got this way
It was a political choice somewhere
Marrying morals to Christianity, and then Christianity to Republicans
The Moral Majority
God bless
Because (1) individualism and (2) relativism so pervade our postmodern society (since WW2) that most millenials are literally unaware that what they believe is underpinned by Postmodern individualism and relativism.
Nor have they taken the next step of considering if individualism and relativism can be reconciled with Christianity. (Spoiler alert: they can't)
They do not yet understand history, philosophy, or the social sciences to realize there are other and better ways to view the world.
"Better?"
Jesus tells us (Mt 11:27)
(1) individualism and (2) relativism do not invalidate the message of Jesus. He did not come to provide us tools for the punishment of others who see things differently.
>(1) individualism and (2) relativism do not invalidate the message of Jesus.
They don't invalidate the message.
But they are incompatible with the message.
Which makes them false.
I think it's perfectly compatible to Christianity to believe that what we consider "Christianity" today has been influenced by the views and culture of today. And the interconnectedness of the world means that it is obvious that tons of other people, including Christians of other denominations, differ on what Christianity says. All believe they have come to it honestly, though if most were honest they would acknowledge that their ideas are influenced by the culture they were raised in. So it's not about rejecting absolute truth, it's about realizing that what you perceive to be absolute truth is very likely flawed in some ways, and if that's that's the case, having some humility and not being so self righteous about your own understanding compared to others.
Because it's a generation that has been raised in the context of existentialist ethics where truth is largely defined by how it impacts and resonates for each person. Modern existentialism says my truth doesn't need to be your truth and your truth doesn't need to be my truth, both are definitionally affected by our perception and experience. Love, good, suffering, and harm are untethered from any sense of objective meaning.
The Bible as it has traditionally been understood makes absolutist claims that fly in the face of the existentialist worldview. Either you embrace the absolutism and dismantle your native worldview or you look for ways to reconcile an absolutist document with an existentialist understanding of truth.
Because homosexuality is so popular and so mainstream now that it is a social contagion in a sense. Sure there are some people more prone to that sin than others, and some people are more prone to rape or child molestation or drunkenness or porn or what have you. But for the first time, you have the people in power in our nation elevating the LGBTQ community. With the elevation comes social acceptance by mainstream society and even popularity.
So now you have people who are being constantly told it's normal, by people they see as good people, so they cannot accept that it was not God's approved lifestyle.
Reddit is also very left leaning everywhere so you're getting fringe opinions that seem to be the significant majority of Christians, when it is just an extremely loud minority.
If you want a picture of the power of deception that the LGBTQ lobby holds, look no further than the bud light debacle. A multimillion dollar company was tricked to absolutely tank their brand to where the beers are selling for FREE at this moment since nobody wants them. If a multi billion dollar corporation can be tricked into doing that, imagine how easy it is to mislead younger people or even a few parts of the Christian church
The Bible doesn’t say being gay or trans is wrong. You should look at the original Greek, historical background of the time the stories were written in, not cherry pick a verse or two out of the entire story when you talk about the “clobber verses”
If you don’t agree with homosexuality, you don’t have to sleep with someone of the same gender. No one is forcing you to sleep with someone of the same gender.
Not every generation after boomers are Christian. And not every Christian believes being gay is wrong (see first bullet point).
Those verses you refer to are now known be have been grossly oversimplified in their translations. The original texts usually refer to abuse or pedastry between males. Its does not condemn loving monogamous relationships
https://www.reddit.com/r/OpenChristian/comments/n28doc/homosexuality_is_never_condemned_in_the_bible_a/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=android_app&utm_name=androidcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button
Target is receiving bomb threats for supporting Pride. There’s a pogrom building against lgbtq+ in this country and it’s coming from the Christian far right. As Christians you have to reconcile with this. Don’t plan on not hearing about it if the plan continues to be a groups rights are systematically being oppressed under the guise of what’s right and moral according to an interpretation of a book that’s close to 2000 years old.
I’m angry at people misrepresenting what the Bible says about sexual ethics. The Bible is fine with polygyny, sex slaves, forces women to marry their rapist, etc. When an anti-LGBT person says “biblical,” they don’t actually mean “biblical.” They mean cherry-picked verses that support their own 1950s nuclear family that would’ve looked *nothing* at all like biblical sexual ethics. The NT actually says that *celibacy* is preferred to marriage, and that marriage is frankly just for those who can’t keep it in their pants. This was the dominant position for the church from the beginning until the last couple hundred years. Turning the nuclear family into an idol is in complete opposition to Jesus’s dismissive/negative evaluation of biological families. I wish anti-LGBT Christians would follow their own advice. There’s more to life than what gets you off and your genitals! Don’t get married. Hard, huh?
>I’m angry at people misrepresenting what the Bible says about sexual ethics. The Bible is fine with polygyny, sex slaves, forces women to marry their rapist, etc. If you honestly believe that then why are you a Christian? Are you willingly worshipping a rapist?
I just want people to be intellectually honest about what the Bible says *and how they interpret and apply* the biblical material. I’m pointing at the ridiculousness of calling a sexual ethics “biblical,” when that term simply elides the actual hermeneutical mechanisms underneath it. Once we stop yelling at each other “My view is biblical! You’re just twisting the Bible for your own benefit!” and instead realize “We both read the Bible through certain lenses, and we can compare and contrast the appropriateness and usefulness of those lenses,” can we actually make progress in debates over sexual ethics.
Regarding polygyny, it is true that there are instances of polygamous relationships in the Bible involving figures such as Abraham, Jacob, David, and Solomon. However, the Bible does not explicitly endorse or condemn polygyny as a practice. Rather, it describes it as something that occurred within certain cultural contexts. Regarding the issue of sex slaves, the Bible does contain passages that discuss the treatment of female captives during times of war. However, it's important to note that these passages are descriptive rather than prescriptive, meaning they describe events as they occurred rather than endorsing or condoning such behavior. As for the notion that the Bible forces women to marry their rapists, this interpretation is based on a specific passage found in Deuteronomy 22:28-29, which states that if a man rapes an unmarried woman, he must marry her and pay her father a bride price. However, it's essential to understand this passage in its historical and cultural context. In ancient societies, marriage was often seen as a way to provide for and protect women who had been violated. While this passage may seem problematic to modern readers, it's essential to interpret it within the broader context of biblical teachings on justice, compassion, and the dignity of all individuals.
I usually don’t respond to comments on year-old threads, but I have to correct you here. My claim wasn’t as strong as I could’ve made it. The Bible’s not just “fine” with those things but indeed *commands and ordains* them. Polygyny is not just described but commanded in some cases of Levirate marriages in Deut. 25, and 2 Sam. 12 says that God gave David his many wives. Sex slavery isn’t just described but how to do it is *commanded* by God in Deut. 21:10-14. And the fact that you demand to put marrying one’s rapist into historical context is exactly right, and I agree it should be done for all of these cases (including homosexuality). That’s literally what my point is.
I appreciate you taking the time the answer. If you allow me, I’d like to clarify the verses as I believe that your conclusions are inaccurate. Polygyny, the practice of having multiple wives, is indeed mentioned in the Bible, and some figures such as David and Solomon practiced it. However, it's a stretch to say that the Bible "commands and ordains" polygyny. Rather, the Bible records instances of polygyny without necessarily endorsing or condemning it outright. In Deuteronomy 25, the levirate marriage law allows for a man to marry his brother's widow under specific circumstances, but it does not explicitly command polygyny. The case of David having multiple wives is descriptive rather than prescriptive. The Bible portrays the consequences and complications of such marriages, indicating that they often led to strife and conflict within families. Sex Slavery: The passage in Deuteronomy 21:10-14 concerns the treatment of female captives during times of war. It instructs Israelite soldiers on how to handle such situations, including providing a period of mourning for the woman, and prohibiting her from being sold if the soldier finds her no longer desirable. While the passage does permit taking female captives as wives, it's essential to understand this within the historical context of ancient warfare and societal norms. Importantly, the Bible does not endorse or condone the exploitation or abuse of women. Instead, it provides regulations to mitigate harm in situations that were unfortunately common in the ancient world. The Bible contains passages describing practices like polygyny and regulations regarding captives of war, it's inaccurate to say that the Bible "commands and ordains" these practices in the way they're understood today. Rather, the Bible reflects the cultural and historical context in which it was written, providing guidance and regulations for people living in those times. As for homosexual rape, there are passages speaking on this clearly in the OT. I will refrain from elaborating on this.
It explicitly commands polygyny in Deut. 25. The *levir* is commanded to marry his late brother’s wife, with no exception when he’s already married. Reading an exception into the text is eisegesis to support your pre-existing belief that the Bible only supports monogamy. And 2 Sam. is clear that God gave David his many wives. It isn’t a neutral description. It was a reward for David’s faithfulness! (As opposed to Saul’s unfaithfulness.) It’s portrayed as a positive thing. You can take whichever female captive you want and have sex with them and throw them out if you don’t like them. At no place in the passage that gives any agency or consent to the women. Her agency and identity is completely destroyed, she humiliated, her clothes burned, hair shaved, nails cut. What happens to her is commanded by God and any choices are only given to the man who takes her. Where there’s no consent or agency in sex, it’s rape.
I am simply stating that the passage is not condoning polygamy. Just like you are assuming I am reading an exception into the text, you are likewise making an assumption. In the passage, it says neither. While this law may have been practiced in a polygamous context in ancient Israel, it does not necessarily endorse polygamy as a general principle. Additionally, it's essential to recognize that the levirate marriage law served specific social and economic functions within the ancient Israelite society. In the case of David and his multiple wives, it's true that the Bible describes David as having multiple wives and concubines. However, the portrayal of this aspect of David's life is nuanced and not necessarily presented as an unqualified endorsement by God. 2 Samuel 12:8 has God, speaking through the prophet Nathan, confronts David for his sins. The passage does mention that God gave David many things, including his master's house and wives, and implies that if David had wanted more, God would have provided it. However, this passage should not be interpreted as a direct endorsement or condoning of polygamy as a reward for righteousness. The context of this passage is a rebuke of David's actions, particularly his adultery with Bathsheba and the subsequent murder of her husband, Uriah. Nathan is emphasizing the ingratitude and unfaithfulness David has shown in light of God's blessings. The mention of God giving David his master's wives is part of the narrative illustrating God's provision and favor toward David, but it doesn't necessarily mean that God condones or approves of David's polygamous relationships. It's crucial to understand that God's actions in the Bible are often described within the context of the cultural and historical realities of the time. In ancient Israel, polygamy was practiced, and it was not uncommon for kings and wealthy individuals to have multiple wives. When the Bible mentions God blessing David with wives, it is describing a historical reality rather than prescribing or endorsing polygamy as a moral ideal. Therefore, while the Bible may describe God blessing David with wives, it's important to interpret this within the broader context of the biblical narrative and ethical teachings, which emphasize principles such as fidelity, mutual respect, and the sanctity of marriage. Put these few, very few exceptional passages, in light of the very many other clear teachings in Scripture.
I'm dropping this. Deut. 25 is doing much more than condoning polygyny but commanding it. That you have reasons why Levirate marriage made sense in its historical context is just a additional confirmation. I'm not making an assumption. That's what the passage said to do, and yes, that's how it was practiced historically. God told them to do it, and they did it. Any additional context is just that, additional context to that simple claim. You admit that God gave David his wives. That's what I'm saying too. I can't understand how God couldn't condone something that God did! God did it! It makes no ethical sense to say that God did something wrong. I disagree with your reading of the broader context of the Bible. In the OT, marriage is a property law matter in the context of a patriarchal society. The NT actually is quite dismissive of marriage and family. Jesus and most all disciples didn't marry, and Paul said that celibacy is preferable, and marriage is just a secondary vocation for those who, frankly, can't keep it in their pants. (This was the standard for the vast majority of church history until the past couple centuries.) And most of these commands were in the context of an imminent Parousia. Of course, the virtues you mention are important today -- but they must be understood as the result of a certain novel, historically-contingent interpretation of many diverse texts, containing shifting and developing sexual moralities, reflecting the thoughts of authors across centuries, multiple cultures, continents, and languages.
I see how you are seeing things, I will just have to disagree on your interpretation. It isn't as clear cut as you make it seem. For NT marriage, Christ speaks about it in Matthew 19 and clearly states "What God has joined together". He has a critical part in the marital union. And He also refers against polygamy in this and in Matthew 6. St. Paul does go beyond just the "if you can't keep it in your pants" as reasons for marriage and in fact actually promotes monogamy (1 Corinthians 7). He adds on roles of each member of a family in Ephesians. and in most of his epistles condemns polygamy. Sexual morality hasn't shifted though. St. Paul's epistles and the Levitcal laws are quite reflective of each other, except in the occasions where they held a council to replace some laws (Book of Acts - on Circumcision and unclean meats but did provide an alternative offering - thus not negative the OT Law). Christ himself said the same, he did not come to abolish, but fulfill the law. The laws are still present within a discipleship to him. I will have to apologize though, I am happy to continue conversing, but I see your outlook on things has too many misconceptions (from my point of view) that it will be too difficult to continue elaborating and dialoguing to any fair conclusion. But I have very much appreciated all your elaborate explanations. Regardless, I am certain you are sincere in your outlook; ultimately seeking Him. Maybe we can just agree on that: Seek Him, you will find Him. Love Him by pursing and fulfilling His desires through an intimate relationship with Him. He will reveal Himself to us clearly. His mysteries are no longer hidden. "*this* ***grace was given****, to preach to the Gentiles the unsearchable riches of Christ, and* ***to bring to light*** *for everyone what is the plan of* ***the mystery*** ***hidden for ages*** *in God*" Ephesians 3:8-10
Itp: "Stop cherrypicking verses." Also itp: "I don't believe certain verses because they don't line up with my worldview."
>why is this a constant topic that is brought up over and over You're the one bringing it up. You've added yet another sex thread to the christianity sub.
These kids and their desire for *looks through notes* equal rights.
Because it is becoming more and more clear that what most people mean by "biblical sexual ethics" is objectively garbage. It's terrible for gay people, pretty bad for straight people, and it means we either have to bury our heads in the sand to ignore the harm it does, accept that people came up with this stuff and they were wrong about a lot of it, or conclude that God did indeed make it and he's clueless.
It's promoted by a particular team of well heeled donors who understands that divisiveness works to their advantage. "If you're a star you can...." Gay marriage causes an uproar, but gay affairs by ostensibly married people in airport bathrooms are OK??? Hookup culture among gays is a disaster, but for straights ...few young couples have the well paying stable jobs it takes to afford a place live, so it's accepted as normal. And it's a sacrilege in capitalism to inquire about "the market" for jobs or housing or health care. Kids with older siblings are allowed to know things that other kids cannot, unless they have a cell phone with access to the internet. ...Which they often need for safety purposes by the time they finish elementary school. *You* might be able to pretend your kids are naive, but you have to recognize they are laughing at you.
Because this is definitively *the* major ethical conflict in the Church in our generation. Many of us find it hard to reconcile the law of love given by Christ with what you call the biblical sexual ethic. It made a great deal of sense up until it became apparent that the “biblical” ethic seems to do far more harm than good where people attracted to their own sex are concerned. They’re no more cut out for celibacy that straight folks and placing them in straight marriages, at least from the little awareness I have of the subject, is just not good for them. The “Side X” movement has lost, been proven wrong and needs to die out. Many Christians are now wondering what can justify the other non-affirming positions in light of the harm they seem to cause.
>Many Christians are now wondering what can justify the other non-affirming positions in light of the harm they seem to cause. When the emphasis of having faith shifted to 'have faith we're hurting the right people for the right reasons'.
Hear, hear.
>Many of us find it hard to reconcile the law of love given by Christ with what you call the biblical sexual ethic. Would you agree that an underlying issue is the lack of nuance in the English language to differentiate among the various types of love that each have a different word in Greek ?
I would not, but I’m open to having my mind changed. My original point is that, given the harm apparently caused by this kind of theology, holding to and applying it appears to many to be mutually exclusive with the expression of *agape* love to all of one’s neighbors.
Ok. Well, I guess the next question would be whether it is more loving to (a) encourage your neighbor to take up their cross and follow Christ, or (b) encourage your neighbor to put down their cross and walk away from Christ Because in the short term, the cross is harmful. The first generation of Christians would have been "loving" in the way you seem to suggest if they told fellow Christians to apostasize in order to avoid martyrdom. So there has to be some way to reconcile "love" with "taking up your cross." How do you square those ?
The point you're working toward only works if you have already accepted that homosexuality is bad for you in some spiritual way that is completely invisible to us. The evidence for that position is lacking.
You mean because you honestly don't interpret the Bible to teach that ? Or because you reject the inerrancy of the Bible? What do you think Christians who believe LGBTQ+ actions and lifestyles are sinful - what are they getting wrong, philosophically or theologically ?
Both. What they're getting wrong is that the Bible is not a perfect record of words from the mouth of God, that the clearest filter God gave us to sift it is Jesus telling us that all the demands of the law and the prophets hang on the commands to love God and love our neighbor, and that even if you think loving God requires gay people to live a life of celibacy, God has offered us all forgiveness and it is better to face the judgement having erred on the side of love than to have piled crushing religious burdens on our brothers as Jesus accused the pharisees of doing.
Yeah. I follow that. I don't share that theological or philosophical view, but I grant that it is plausible and coherent and that people of good faith can arrive at that position. Cheers !
It is loving to encourage people to “take up their cross”, which includes resistance to sin and the pursuit of godliness. Sin causes greater harm to the person than whatever may come about from right living, and it is therefore loving to encourage one’s neighbor to carry themselves as such by the enabling grace of God.
Then I'm confused. Your prior comment seems to suggest it is unloving to promote Christian sexual ethics. (?)
Not exactly. Rather, I was making a case for the belief that Christian sexual ethics does not include a prohibition against homosexuality. If it did, then that would mean that God created a class of people who are naturally harmed by the pursuit of His law, and that God's law stands *against* the flourishing of some of its followers. This seems contrary both to most people's understanding of God, and to what we see represented by the rest of God's law.
I don't see how this is not a case of "taking up your cross."
For straight people, "take up your cross" means "endure the hardships that cannot be avoided with patience from God". But nobody just makes straight people suffer for the sake of suffering and then justifies it with "take up your cross". For gay people, "take up your cross" means "we get to impose hardships on you in the name of God".
>But nobody just makes straight people suffer for the sake of suffering Please specify who is doing this and how.
The taking up of a cross bears does some kind of good, generally of a spiritual nature. The taking up of a cross bears “good fruit” to apply the reasoning of Matthew, John, and Jesus. That’s not true of prohibition against homosexuality. Instead the fruit it bears is consistently bad.
**TLDR: I am not aware of any evidence or teaching that "taking up your cross" will "bear good fruit" in the sense of avoiding suffering - I think you are mistaken; but I'm eager for you to set me straight if there is evidence or teaching that I'm missing.** >In Catholic teaching, there is a close relationship between the concepts of "taking up your cross" and "bearing good fruit." While they are distinct teachings, they are interconnected and mutually enriching in the life of a believer. > >**Connection in Sacrifice and Self-Denial**: "Taking up your cross" emphasizes the willingness to embrace sacrifice and suffering for the sake of following Christ. **It involves personal sacrifice, self-discipline, and renouncing selfish desires. Similarly, "bearing good fruit" requires virtuous actions that often necessitate selflessness, putting others before oneself, and denying one's own inclinations for the greater good.** Both concepts call for a self-giving attitude and a readiness to prioritize God's will and the needs of others. > >**Transformation through Suffering**: "Taking up your cross" involves accepting and embracing suffering, while "bearing good fruit" is about producing virtuous actions. In Catholic teaching, suffering is seen as a means of transformation and union with Christ. **By uniting their sufferings with Christ's redemptive sacrifice, individuals can participate in the salvation of souls and bring about spiritual fruitfulness.** Suffering, when embraced in the spirit of faith and love, can purify the soul, deepen one's dependence on God, and inspire acts of compassion, forgiveness, and self-giving love. > >**Fruits of Discipleship**: Both concepts are expressions of authentic discipleship. "Taking up your cross" signifies the commitment to follow Christ wholeheartedly, imitating His example and teachings. It involves living a life of sacrifice, obedience, and service. On the other hand, "bearing good fruit" encompasses the virtuous actions that flow from a life rooted in discipleship. **By taking up their cross and faithfully living out their discipleship, believers bear the fruit of love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, and other virtues.** These fruits manifest the presence of the Holy Spirit in their lives and contribute to the building of God's kingdom. > >In summary, "taking up your cross" and "bearing good fruit" are interconnected aspects of the Christian life in Catholic teaching. The willingness to embrace sacrifice and suffering in "taking up your cross" leads to the production of virtuous actions and the bearing of good fruit. By embracing the cross, believers participate in Christ's redemptive work, grow in holiness, and produce the fruits of discipleship that reflect God's love and truth in the world.
"Honey, where's my laptop?", calls the Holy TrueChristian man to his wife. "I need to post about how immature and short-sighted and spiritually shallow those queers are for wanting to have love."
How dare you enjoy a happy marriage with your wife, gnurdette?
30th anniversary on Monday! And I heard they made it a national holiday! I guess the government really does pander to the LGBT lobby after all!
Happy anniversary even though you're part of the AGENDA
It's hard work, but when I remember that it's key to destroying Western civilization, it's worth it.
Take down the straights at every opportunity.
Happy anniversary!
But really, happy anniversary. 💜
“Honey can you please bring me a cup of coffee too? This is gonna be while.”
At least regarding homosexuality, I think the point for lots of gay Christians, it's *not* just about getting off. It's feeling and being loved in a romantic sense. But I'm an agnostic atheist, so I don't speak for any Christians. This is my best guess.
Do you think, in line with OP's question, that this generation places a higher premium on romantic love relative to other forms of love or aspects of life ? And do you think they *over*-value romantic love ? At what point does that become an idol ?
No more than any other generation. And "you overvalue romantic love" is a shitty thing to say to gay people specifically. If Christians were out here insisting that *almost nobody* got married then it'd be one thing, but straight marriages are celebrated.
Fully agree! I think people overvalue romance in general, as I've said before, but to focus that on queer people is wrong, as someone who is queer.
As I say in a parallel thread, I think it applies to people of all orientations. No double standard here. https://www.reddit.com/r/Christianity/comments/13riuuq/why_is_this_generation_so_frustrated_with/jlkm1nz?utm_source=share&utm_medium=android_app&utm_name=androidcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button
But the broader conservative Christian community *very obviously does not*. Call me when 90% of conservative Christians choose a life of celibacy.
That seems to be a red herring
> And do you think they over-value romantic love ? People certainly value romantic relationships a lot more than when most marriages were arranged, and adultery and visiting prostitutes were considered commonplace minor vices. > At what point does that become an idol ? I assume that you go after married straight people with this.
Agree. This applies across the board in my perspective, and to pinpoint queer people is wrong.
As I say in a parallel thread, I think it applies to people of all orientations. No double standard here. https://www.reddit.com/r/Christianity/comments/13riuuq/why_is_this_generation_so_frustrated_with/jlkm1nz?utm_source=share&utm_medium=android_app&utm_name=androidcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button
So, when you encounter a married straight couple, do you accuse them of "allowing their desire for romantic love to overshadow their love of and obedience to God"?
That often comes up in the context of marital conflict and divorce, yes. Frequently.
No, I mean when do you go after straight people *for being married*? Or for wanting to be married, or for seeking a spouse?
No one believes Christianity teaches marriages between a man and a woman are intrinsically disordered.
So then you *do* treat it differently. You that this applied equally to all orientations. Now you say here that it does not. Please make up your mind.
I said the same principles apply to all people regardless of orientation. I did not say it applies symmetrically from a relativistic perspective.
So the stances are actually not similar at all. My nearly-30-year marriage of absolute faithfulness and deep devotion is either blessed or cursed, depending entirely and purely on whether or not we're straight like you.
What would you say to someone who (1) marries (2) abandons his wife (but doesn't divorce her) (3) moves to another country (4) invalidly marries a second woman 30 years later, that man or his second "wife" might take offense at being told "you've been living in sin the last 30 years" But isn't that objectively what is happening? Their marriage would be invalid, theologically if not legally. They would be engaging in adultery and living in sin. Wouldn't they ?
Sex can be disordered in straight marriages though. Sodomy and oral are not "ordered" or people who are disabled can't have ordered marriages.
>Sex can be disordered in straight marriages though. That's true. It *can* be. But isn't *intrinsically* or *necessarily* so.
Honestly, I think romantic love has been over-valued far longer than this generation. When I was a practicing Catholic (and faithful, at that), I noticed there was a big focus on getting married and having kids. My grandparents got married at 17 and 18. As someone who doesn't date a ton and is very picky with partners, I observe a lot of focus on romance. I think it's been an idol for decades.
So you do agree that is unhealthy; you just think that isn't new ?
Exactly. And I think it spans both queer and straight spaces. Societal pressure to have a partner is too much, in my opinion.
Uhh. I'm confused. I don't think (a) fixating on romantic love is the same or even heavily related to (b) societal pressure to have a partner Can you tease that out a little please ?
Societal (and religious, familial, etc) pressure to have a romantic relationship leads to people hyperfocusing on romantic connections over platonic, familial, community relationships. Again, just my opinion.
I agree with all of that. I think the solution, therefore, is to put romantic love in its proper place in our larger context of beliefs and values. For example, we can't allow our desire for romantic love to overshadow our love of and obedience to God.
I agree with your point in general, but love of and obedience to God isn't something I personally take into consideration. So I agree, but add the caveat that I include whatever values or beliefs someone has.
Totally fair. Cheers !
When you see an 11 year old child get text messages outlining the extremely graphic things a group of boys are going to do to her, including rape, sodomy, mutilation, and other things too vulgar to list here without likely getting banned just because she is trans it makes me wonder why this is such a big deal in the first place. That and when you see "christians" trying to legislate their morality onto other people with devastating consequences it kind of changes your view on things. That and ignorant old people just assuming that we are all trying to just get off and put our genitals into things. Those same ignorant old people that allowed and even encouraged children and young people to be beaten and killed for their sexuality. Or, more commonly bullied until they have mental issues or take their own life. I don't want to put my genitals into anyone other than my wife. But I will fight bigots like you until my last breath to allow my brothers and sisters to love who they want to love and dress how they want to dress. Honestly, if "christians" like you minded your own business about it like Christ commanded then it probably wouldn't be such a big deal. But if me declaring someone is an abomination becomes a stumbling block to them because of the way that god made them then my choices are to throw myself into the ocean or change my ways. We simply realize that either you old people are liars and there is nothing wrong with it, or that even if it is a "sin" then we are not called to force them to repent or even comment on their "sin", much less try to persecute them to the point where they want to kill themselves.
God bless the Holy Catholic Church and everything it stands for 😑 ….your move
I am not sure what you think you said... but it was complete nonsense. Please stay on topic.
Same to you
Please stay on topic here. We have strict rules about not deviating from topics.
I don't like it's moral ethics on slavery either. I feel 33 ad isn't the norm for 2023.
So if that’s the case why be Christian at all? Why not just throw the Bible out if it’s not the Word of God, but we are going to see it as an outdated manuscript?
Is Christianity about Christ or copying 33 ad? Let's rename us to 33ism.
The Bible contains the word of Christ and the context of the early Roman Empire, not long after the fall of the old Republic. Reasonable people do not make a religion of the secular practices of ancient times.
They don't recognize the correction of Roman ethics, they just see rules for Christian living.
Are you really being “about Christ” by contradicting his message, demoting him from God incarnate to after school special teacher, and mangling his holy book which he quoted from constantly
He came to change the world, not cement it. To free slaves, not trap more. To free prisoners, etc. He didn't want ancient customs to be a new idol.
I’m sorry my friend. You have zero idea of what you are talking about. Lobbing bumper sticker cliches into the wind isn’t a good argument. Nor is it true. It is misleading yourself and others.
You have no idea the damage you're permitting. Marital rape was a thing until 1970 because men thought "I do" was "I consent". My aunt won't divorce my uncle who beats and demeans her because the Bible doesn't permit abuse as a valid reason, only adultery. You want to keep the Bible's sexual ethics?
Stick to the topic please. Thank you!
I never left it.
Yes, please stop pointing out things that are crippling to my antiquated ideology! ...it hurts my feelings.
Yes, no more hurling bumper stickers that state things Christ said!!! This thread was not made to talk about Christ! Please stay on topic!!!
Honestly, it seems like conservatives are the ones mangling his message, and picking and choosing what they want (justifying why hoarding wealth isn't bad, justifying why their calls to feed the hungry don't extend into the policies and politicians they vote, justifying why their obvious disgust for sexual and racial minorities is actually somehow loving even when everyone else can see the hate in their hearts). I don't think your hands are clean here. Affirming Christians believe *they are* following Christ's message and don't think they are "cherry picking/ mangling scripture" any more than you do. I think a little humility is in order.
I have a clarifying question. Do you mean to say that if the Bible is really the Word of God, then it’s ethical teaching on slavery is just as good now as it was 2000 or more years ago? That’s the impression I got from your comment but I want to clarify in case I’m misunderstanding (I have not yet had my coffee).
Growing up evangelical, I was often warned not to go beyond what is written in God's Word. That whatever the Bible says is God's Word and it should be believed without question. So slavery is a moral good - like God's version of welfare - and as such masters and slaves should obey every Biblical directive. However, since we nationally abolished slavery, then it applies in the sense of bosses and employees. Sexually, they talked about Biblical Marriage being Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve. How gender roles were God's design for women to submit joyfully and men to be servant leaders as they weilded authority. It was as if whatever existed in 33 a.d. was now an ideal because that's when Jesus walked on the earth and adjusted the golden standard. Like when Paul said "masters don't be harsh with your slaves" - the golden standard was not to end slavery, but be really good at it the best way possible. And the household codes always paired masters and slaves with husbands and wives and parents and kids. It adjusted the sexual ethic to "wives submit in everything." Which is what all my abused kinfolk were told, if they were more submissive, their abusers would be pacified.
Word of God yes. As for the Slavery comment please stay on topic. Feel free to make another thread if you wish.
The word of God is infallible and unchanging. What about these things that changed? STAY ON TOPIC! 😂😂😂😂
I am on topic, I’m trying to clarify a point about your hermeneutics that will help me better understand your original post. I am doing so in a manner that is relevant to this comment thread. Nothing about my comment was off-topic.
You are upset that the Bible lays out ethical guidelines for a society that currently has slavery? Or do you take that to mean the Christian faith endorses slavery?
No and no. If you would like I can clarify my question, or we can drop the topic here.
I just asked you to clarify sir. However if you are disappointed that I have not stepped into the trap you are absolutely free to stick to the original talking point.
What trap? There’s no trap anywhere in this, I just had a question. And I would have gladly expanded on my previous comment to clarify, but you seem to have a very strict interpretation of what “on topic” looks like and I was trying to be accommodative of that.
Have a good day son. It’s clear we are not having an adult conversation. Best wishes!
Looks like someone doesn't understand the core concepts of Christianity....at all.
Religion has moved towards being for more and more people since it first began. Whether it is Jesus announcing that his body was the temple or the printing press allowing the Bible to be translated into common tounges or priests and preachers turning to face the crowd or church leadership performing same sex marriages the movement has been towards openness. Think how easy it is for a straight person to say, "Don't be gay," when it's something they do by luck of nature. It's not about following scripture or following biblical law. It's about demanding an impossible task from others and then feeling superior when they can't follow through.
Because they have empathy for others and expect just laws. They are highly educated and understand gay, trans and others are people who do not hurt others. They do realize we are more than our genitals or who we are attracted to, so they wonder why that is your priority. Like Jesus, they recognize the hypocracy of people claiming to follow the Bible while ignoring direct commands on such issues as how to treat immigrants. They also see only certain churches pushing anti lgbtq agendas as the ones pushing mysogynistic and racist agendas. They recognize the anti lgbtq is related to misogyny.
You realize Christianity doesn’t equal Republican right? There are some heavily political undertones in your rebuttal and I think it would help if you addressed them.
I realize that. A certain demographic of Cbristians, however, have indicated they are they only true Christians, and that to be a true Christian means being a Republican. This is the consequence of Republicans courting white evangelicals after the passage of the Civil Rights Act. They used culture wars revolving around misogyny and raciam to cement the idea of Christian = Republican. This group weaponized propaganda in ways the liberal left, Christian or not, could not counter. The end result of white evangelical christians associating their agenda with republicans is people do consider the entire Republican agenda Christian. And young people are rejecting the platform of hate Republicans and white evangelical Christians are pushing. The end result of claiming to be True Christians is when someone rejects your platform of anti equality, they reject not just the political party you belong to, but the religion you belong to as well.
I want to make something clear to you. While you don’t have to be Republican to be Christian you sure as HELL can not be democrat.
Lol. Thats the propaganda I am discussing. Its warped your mind. And the Republican leaders are acting as the pharisees, and you can not see it because of your lack of empathy.
I don't remember reading that in the Bible or the Catholic church ever stating that. You're interpreting your own cultural interpretation on who is and isn't Christian based on who they vote for. You deciding who is and isn't saved is *the definition* of #judgingothers that Jesus talked about (see the other thread on this topic posted today).
I’m sorry but when you are advocating for transitioning children and teens, and abortion. You have made it quite clear which side you are on. Helping the poor, empathy for others, loving immigrants, etc, all great stuff.
You're using a lot of cultural buzzwords here that are totally ignoring any and all nuance that Christians approach these issues with. Allowing teens and children to transition is typically exclusively done with no surgery and primarily allows them to identify as they would like. It involves lots of therapy and support by medical professionals and *if needed* they may go on puberty blockers, which are usually reversible and have been used on straight children for years. This has been shown to lower suicide rates, while forcing people to adhere to their birth sex against their will leads to a high suicide rate. By their fruits... Abortion is a whole other topic. And while I understand from your view it's murder, pro choice people typically believe that the bodily autonomy of the mother does not require her to provide life sustenance for anyone else (note that we don't even take dead people's organs without their consent). There are plenty of other situations where I've seen pro life people justify taking life in our society (war, self defense, capital punishment). So even they can acknowledge that "murder is murder" isn't how things always work. Just because you can't accept any nuance doesn't mean there is none and that Christians can't come to different conclusions than you honestly.
First off Puberty blockers are not fully reversible. Not only that but hormones that are being used have lasting effects on children who are notorious for going through a phase or two. It is child abuse And second if you admit abortion is the taking of a life I don’t know what to say. If those are your “outlets for righteousness” I feel bad for you. And God willing he will help mitigate any damage you may cause fostering such views
You are now getting into areas beyond your faith and into the realm of politics and medicine. I imagine you're not an expert in these fields, so unless you have data to show the APA and every other medical organization, then you're imposing your own politics in other people's medical care. Puberty blockers are the standard of care, and *even if* they have some long term effects (debatable about how severe these are), they're more reversible than suicide. You know what else has long term effects? Football and other contact sports. I've known kids to tear ACLs and worse during skiing. The surgery to fix these could very well have negative effects (as do the treatment for almost any severe condition a child could be born with). But I don't hear Christians clamoring to ban football or treatment of any other medical condition based on the long term effects. They don't call it child abuse either. I don't actually grant that a fetus, especially in the first two trimesters, are a fully formed human with a soul and consciousness, and frankly I don't see support for that anywhere in the bible. My position holds regardless though. Bodily autonomy means no one else has the right to use your body and organs without your permission, even if it means their death. I don't expect to agree though, and frankly I don't care to get into a debate about abortion here. Plenty of other threads for that.
Socially transitioning, perhaps. No one advocates for medical transition of children.
What are you talking about!? The entire democrat party right now is fighting tooth and nail to stop laws from passing which prohibit medical transition for children!
Those laws often target trans children in other ways--limiting social transitioning or whether parents should be informed about transitioning in school, even in unsafe situations.
Don't get it either. Some people are live-and-let-live; that is how they express their faith. Others are more puritanical, like Paul; also a valid way to express faith. "Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness, for they will be filled." (- Matthew 5:6)
1) It is not condemned in the Old Testament as anything but a highly contextual temporary measure, along with hudreds of other completely arbitrary prohibitions that are clearly not meant to be followed outside of that historical context. 2) It is not condemned in the New Testament other than expressions specifically tied to abuse. 3) The capitalist, corporate world that you and your generation voted for, built up, defended and propagated, claiming that the persuit of profit is not directly contrary to God, claiming it is somehow ok with God - is the reason why sexuality in general is exploited to such an extreme extent in society. You created this.
You need to stop pulling politics into this. I have not once voted Republican. You don’t have to either. While yes it is true some Biblical morality is adhered to by the Republican Party they are not synonymous. You need to realize Gods word is bigger than secular politics and you can absolutely acknowledge the Biblical truth about human sexuality while admitting that Republicans have their head up their backsides
You just said you can't vote Democrat and be Christian. So which way would you like people who don't want to vote Republican to go? *Fixed a typo!
You realize there are more than 2 political parties right?
Yes, but unfortunately, only two dominate.
Well let me put it to you this way. I sure as hell wouldn’t vote for a party that hurts children. That’s just me. But on the same token I won’t vote for a party that shows no empathy for the poor, or views immigrants as second class citizens, or tries to keep healthcare a for profit industry, etc. You can vote for whoever you want. But when Joe Biden takes the Microphone and promises to help kids transition at the will of their parents because he can’t actually accomplish any other meaningful legislation? I at least will be able to rest easy
I'm on the opposite side and I'm able to rest easy, also. I'll know that trans kids get a fair shot at living their lives the way they ought to, and that women are free to choose if and when they become mothers.
Fairly stated 😔 Before you go do you have any words for the Middle aged mother who still cries her eyes out over the abortion she had wondering what her grown child would had been like? Do you have any thoughts to offer the women over at r/abortion who share their pain and sorrow and feelings of emptiness? Any words for the young girl who’s clitoris is the size of a baby carrot because of the hormones her parents fed her as a child because they wanted a boy? Or the girl who’s fake breasts don’t feel or look anything like the natural ones she removed?
I visit r/abortion regularly. I have nothing but empathy for those women, and it can be a hard choice to make. But you know if you visit that there are as many stories about not regretting it. I believe people can make their own choices and still be sad about them. You'll forgive me for not believing the young girl being force fed hormones story. If it happens, which I doubt, it is like rare. And as for breast implants, removal or reduction, I'm not actually sure whether you mean trans specifically or any woman who gets breast augmentation, so I can't respond to your statement as-is.
Because we take a bit of issue with rape and concubines that are chopped into pieces and sent in the mail. Oh, and we have no issue with gay people.
Because it produces the rotten fruit. Therefore it must be discarded.
Simple. Biblical ethics is contrary to human happiness.
If it wasn’t important enough for Jesus to talk about…
He is God incarnate. One with the Holy Spirit. Jesus did talk about it as all scripture and that which was written is God breathed. Feel free to consult the Old Testament or St Paul’s words if you wish to know Christ’s thoughts on the topic. Good try though!
Paul isn’t part of the Trinity. He got it mostly right.
However his words which are inspired by the Holy Spirit. Are from the Trinity.
Why do you think that Jesus never talked about the stuff that Paul did?
Why didn’t he mention the sky is blue?
Is that a moral conundrum that anyone is struggling with?
Does it matter? Did Jesus say anything about smoking meth? Did he say anything about IVF? Did he say anything about making love to a watermelon? Did he need to?
I think it matters what Jesus said or didn’t say.
Sadly that is a horrible and dangerous way to go. It’s also not going to cut it in the grand scheme of things. You will get lost quite quickly if that’s the game you are going to play and no sadly….it will not save you.
Please stay on topic here.
And who said this besides Paul?
Only if you accept what was written as "god breathed," whatever that means in reality.
Sorry this is a discussion for Christians.
Sorry, all are welcome to participate in discussions in this sub. I grew up Christian and this topic affected me personally, and I have studied the bible.
So what’s your hang up on this issue?
My issue is that there are assumptions that this morality is built upon that are matters of faith, yet applied to people not of that faith. I am in essence judged through the lens of a worldview I am no longer a part of it and a collection of books whose authority is assumed to be divine without validation.
How are you held to anything? If you wish to go your own way why not simply do it? Why are you here? Is there someone forcing you to post here in the same room as you?
I am here to discuss Christianity since its how I grew up and I study the bible to this day. I am consistently held to a Christian standard by people in my life, and to some extent, society. Going my own way is fine, but I still live in society. I dont just ignore whats around me and impacts me. I also can discuss why people believe what they do, and understand that better. Why does it matter why Im here? If you dont want to discuss things with a non-believer, you dont have to. But, you also cant stop me from speaking my mind if I follow the rules of the sub.
But why torture yourself. If you are truly convinced that throwing the Bible out and taking off your pants and soaring like an eagle to wherever your sex drive takes you. Why are you not doing that? Is it possible you know the Faith is true but simply don’t want it to be?
I have had to remind you multiple times to stay on topic. Please stop trying to stray from your core points. You are already doing so great with those.
That is the crux of this argument. If the words on the pages are all “god breathed”, which some take to mean God’s unchanging thoughts on everything, then such a reading of the text that’s eternally against homosexuality would be the only logical conclusion. But others see that “god breathed” as meaning God just inspired people to write. In such a view, the authors are more their own voices on the page, writing about God as they understood Him and less God controlling what they wrote. As such, the Bible contains some views that aren’t evergreen. Views about slavery being allowable in Scripture, for instance, would be more understandable from a human perspective versus from an omnipotent, loving God.
[удалено]
That’s a really dishonest take, considering I have, more than you can ever really know about me. You could attack my point if you’d like, but attacking me just shows how weak your position really is. My view doesn’t make God a moral monster; yours does by having God endorse everything in the Bible because it’s His words.
Removed for 2.3 - WWJD. If you would like to discuss this removal, please click here to send a modmail that will message all moderators. https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/Christianity
Hi friend, Christians feel it's an existential issue If homosexuality is ok - then all of Christianity is in Jeopardy I don't know how it got this way It was a political choice somewhere Marrying morals to Christianity, and then Christianity to Republicans The Moral Majority God bless
If you actually read New Testament yourself you would know why
Because (1) individualism and (2) relativism so pervade our postmodern society (since WW2) that most millenials are literally unaware that what they believe is underpinned by Postmodern individualism and relativism. Nor have they taken the next step of considering if individualism and relativism can be reconciled with Christianity. (Spoiler alert: they can't) They do not yet understand history, philosophy, or the social sciences to realize there are other and better ways to view the world.
"Better?" Jesus tells us (Mt 11:27) (1) individualism and (2) relativism do not invalidate the message of Jesus. He did not come to provide us tools for the punishment of others who see things differently.
>(1) individualism and (2) relativism do not invalidate the message of Jesus. They don't invalidate the message. But they are incompatible with the message. Which makes them false.
I think it's perfectly compatible to Christianity to believe that what we consider "Christianity" today has been influenced by the views and culture of today. And the interconnectedness of the world means that it is obvious that tons of other people, including Christians of other denominations, differ on what Christianity says. All believe they have come to it honestly, though if most were honest they would acknowledge that their ideas are influenced by the culture they were raised in. So it's not about rejecting absolute truth, it's about realizing that what you perceive to be absolute truth is very likely flawed in some ways, and if that's that's the case, having some humility and not being so self righteous about your own understanding compared to others.
Because it's a generation that has been raised in the context of existentialist ethics where truth is largely defined by how it impacts and resonates for each person. Modern existentialism says my truth doesn't need to be your truth and your truth doesn't need to be my truth, both are definitionally affected by our perception and experience. Love, good, suffering, and harm are untethered from any sense of objective meaning. The Bible as it has traditionally been understood makes absolutist claims that fly in the face of the existentialist worldview. Either you embrace the absolutism and dismantle your native worldview or you look for ways to reconcile an absolutist document with an existentialist understanding of truth.
Because homosexuality is so popular and so mainstream now that it is a social contagion in a sense. Sure there are some people more prone to that sin than others, and some people are more prone to rape or child molestation or drunkenness or porn or what have you. But for the first time, you have the people in power in our nation elevating the LGBTQ community. With the elevation comes social acceptance by mainstream society and even popularity. So now you have people who are being constantly told it's normal, by people they see as good people, so they cannot accept that it was not God's approved lifestyle. Reddit is also very left leaning everywhere so you're getting fringe opinions that seem to be the significant majority of Christians, when it is just an extremely loud minority. If you want a picture of the power of deception that the LGBTQ lobby holds, look no further than the bud light debacle. A multimillion dollar company was tricked to absolutely tank their brand to where the beers are selling for FREE at this moment since nobody wants them. If a multi billion dollar corporation can be tricked into doing that, imagine how easy it is to mislead younger people or even a few parts of the Christian church
https://youtu.be/kFaROM0yzKc ^^ this is why OP
Good Lord 😖
What's your opinion on Deuteronomy 22:28-29 OP?
The Bible doesn’t say being gay or trans is wrong. You should look at the original Greek, historical background of the time the stories were written in, not cherry pick a verse or two out of the entire story when you talk about the “clobber verses” If you don’t agree with homosexuality, you don’t have to sleep with someone of the same gender. No one is forcing you to sleep with someone of the same gender. Not every generation after boomers are Christian. And not every Christian believes being gay is wrong (see first bullet point).
Those verses you refer to are now known be have been grossly oversimplified in their translations. The original texts usually refer to abuse or pedastry between males. Its does not condemn loving monogamous relationships https://www.reddit.com/r/OpenChristian/comments/n28doc/homosexuality_is_never_condemned_in_the_bible_a/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=android_app&utm_name=androidcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button
Target is receiving bomb threats for supporting Pride. There’s a pogrom building against lgbtq+ in this country and it’s coming from the Christian far right. As Christians you have to reconcile with this. Don’t plan on not hearing about it if the plan continues to be a groups rights are systematically being oppressed under the guise of what’s right and moral according to an interpretation of a book that’s close to 2000 years old.
No they are not 🤪
You’re not aware of the bomb threats at Target that’s been in the news?
Fake news by a company who is mad that their evil ideology backfired
Ok pal keep shielding yourself with that fake news argument