https://lemmy.blahaj.zone/c/lgbtq_plus_christianity
this is probably gonna be controversial, but i mean this for people who actually follow christ’s teachings and not to be a cesspool of homophobia and transphobia.
https://lemmy.blahaj.zone/c/lgbtq_plus_christianity
this is probably gonna be controversial, but i mean this for people who actually follow christ’s teachings and not to be a cesspool of homophobia and transphobia.
You’re both kinda silly.
Divorce is very much in the Bible. In both Old and New testaments.
Honestly I don’t think I’ve ever met anyone calling themselves a Christian who has actually read the Bible from cover to cover, aside from actual pros (that is actual students of theology).
I was. I did. Now I’m not. And it’s not a coincidence.
Christianity is unsuitable with itself, for Christ’s sake. It would be literally impossible to follow the Bible with the amount of contradictions there are.
That being said all monotheism is hot garbage.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_monotheism
I guess you are too eager to preach and are missing the point of my inquiry.
I am not saying “there is no contradiction in Christianity”, but “who are we to say that a gay person can not be accepting of Christian teachings?”
No eagerness here. Just very boring facts, which you have to ignore to make your case.
The Bible literally instructs to stone people wearing two different fabrics at the same time. A leather jacket and jeans (cotton) ? That’s a stoning.
Just because your society hasn’t moved past beyond having to pretend childish books are real, doesn’t mean everyone here will agree. There are still people here who claim to be Christian, but the Nordics are very secular and you’d never have anyone be upset that something is “against Christianity”.
The US is almost a theocracy nowadays, which is so ironic, given how it began and what the founding fathers actually argued for.
Accepting Christian teachings/ Christian values is not the same as taking the Bible as irrevocable truth, much less as something that should be used as a law code.
Only fundamentalists would argue as such.
Ah, so it’s the “no, actually I am a Christian, despite not following any of the rules. I just make up my own”.
And you don’t see why ideology like that is mocked in some very secular countries?
If you claim to be Christian, but then take literally everything to mean whatever you want it to mean, except when it’s something you don’t like (when religious people protest it’s always “It’s not in the Bible!” = “it’s against Christian values which is the term we’re just calling our feelings but here’s a clip from the book we don’t believe in”), then why are you calling yourself a Christian to begin with?
The answer is because you’re afraid of denouncing Christianity and organized monotheism as the bullshit they so very clearly are.
What are these “Christian values” of yours then? Oh the very core or Jesus’ teachings, which is the very core of pretty much any even remotely functional ideology, the golden rule; do unto others as you’d have done to yourself.
It’s not in any ways inherently Christian. Judaism, Confucianism, Islam, Buddhism and various others all have it.
So if that’s all you’re taking from Christianity and nothing that’s unique to Christianity, then why call your values Christian? Because you dislike explaining yourself to annoying older relatives, that’s why.
But if you can come out as trans, then surely awkward conversations with conservatives are already on the books, so why not go all in and actually take the smart stance in religion as well.
I’m not an atheist, by the way. I used to be. Just like I used to be Christian. First I grew out of Christianity, and then I grew out of atheism. So I don’t know what you think I’m “preaching”?
Notice I did not say “I am a Christian”, but “accepting of Christian values”. If you can not understand this difference, I am not sure how much I can help.
All your rant after that is built out of a strawman, so there is no point in arguing further.
Please do elaborate on what you mean.
How else would I know? What you’re saying seems to have literally nothing to do with Christianity.
You can’t state what said values are, nor do you say whether your “acceptance” of them means you try to follow them or if you believe in them?
The fact you can’t really find those answers should be a hint to the amount of indoctrination around organised religion, for the reasons I’ve explained. I had it when I was around 18, one night at the night club, we were outside for a smoke, and this ~10 years older guy just enquires — in somewhat good faith — why I wear the cross around my neck. It was a golden cross and I got it as a confirmation gift at 15.
But the question stuck with me, and I ended up taking it off. I don’t remember whether on the spot or months later.
But the facts are that if people genuinely just go with whatever we think is moral at the time, then why on Earth would anyone claim to found their moral ideology on a book they have to literally mostly ignore?
It doesn’t make sense.
Now if you’d just asked “do you think you can be accepting of people who act according to the golden rule”, then ofc the answer is “well yes, there’s zero reason why you wouldn’t”.
Pretty much the only reason you’re asking this is because you know that “Christian values” can refer to conservative transphobic values as well. I’m sure the ones you’re asking for aren’t, but you’re aware it’s a possible meaning of the word.
So please, elaborate. I can’t read your thoughts, so I can’t actually know what you mean unless you explain what you mean by “Christian values”
A very short description would be to look at the Bible not as prescriptive rulebook which we should be using to measure ourselves against, but as a descriptive collection of stories that can help us make sense of human nature and understand that all these “contradictions” are not meant to be solved, but manifestations of our fallibility.
E.g, I see the story of Babel and I don’t think “that’s why we have different languages in the world” or “if you try to reach God by other means than salvation, He will punish you” but simply “technological progress and science alone are not enough to bring us closer to some utopia (closer to God)”. I think of Kosher diets not as “if you eat pork you are a bad person and deserve eternal damnation”, but “at that time and historical contexts, pork meat was full of deadly pathogens, so it would be wise to avoid it”.
This is just scratching the surface and it would take a bit more time than I have now, but I will try my best to answer you later.
More ignoring and crying how “you’re not supposed to take it seriously, but actually we tell everyone that taking it seriously is the 1. tenet of Christianity and that we do take it seriously, but NONE OF US EVEN ACTUALLY READ IT LOL”
Read the fucking thing and if you’re not a coward, you’ll stop calling yourself a Christian.
No pls don’t attempt to defend it before you actually fucking read the Bible.
This is the type of Motte and Bailey that people love to throw around, but is oh-so-tiring. Yes, you can argue that religious leaders are taking a lot of the power structures, but they are all still acting within the framework of a Democratic institution. There is no single Church or religious group who is in direct control of the political institutions and indirectly it is impossible to argue that any Church has more power or influence than the Corporations: tech companies, Hollywood, banks, the auto industry… All of them have way more lobbying power than Mormons, evangelicals, Catholics or SDAs.
Name one contradiction and I’ll address it. Not going to do all 400
“Make it easier for me to ignore facts”
Wtf are you smoking
I am not answering 400 supposed “contradictions” on a Lemmy thread 💀
As if you could.
You’ve not even read the whole thing, I would bet.
Much less being able to suss out literally hundreds of contradictions. So what you’re saying is “it doesn’t matter how ridiculous and contradictory Christianity is, I would never accept that being the case, no matter the evidence. I’ve made up my mind and there’s no changing it. It’s called having faith.”
Argumentum ad nauseam
Oh you’re at the infantile “I’m gonna name a fallacy as an argument” stage of your development. Congrats on turning 16.
Unfortunately, what you’re doing is called argumentum ad logicam.
More commonly known as the fallacy fallacy
You literally sent me a graphic I had to zoom in on alleging 439 “contradictions” in the Bible and telling me that my argument is invalid because I am refusing to answer every single one in a lemmy thread. I volunteered to answer any one you propose to me. Just not all 439, for the sake of time.
Sent “you”?
No, I posted one, and no I’m not saying that’s the reason.
You’re saying that the Bible being literally filled with contradictions doesn’t matter, and you base that on there being too many contradictions to answer in a Lemmy comment.
If you were arguing in good faith, you could arbitrarily pick some and show why they’re not actually contradictions. But you can’t. You can’t do it to a single one, let alone all of them.
And despite that, despite whatever, there is NOTHING that you would accept as proof of Christianity and monotheism being bad.
Literally nothing.
It doesn’t matter that historically monotheism is obviously violent and crazy, it doesn’t matter that the Catholic Church has been systematically raping little boys for God knows how long, NONE OF IT MATTERS TO YOU.
You’re literally arguing in bad faith. Yet you pretend as if naming a fallacy makes you right. Then you get even more ashamed when I point out how nerdy and wrong it is to larp a philosopher by answering with a pretentious latin form of a fallacy. I point it out with a pretentious Latin form for the fallacy you used. Then you still refuse to actually produce any rhetoric.
Like I said, there is NOTHING that would change your mind in this. The ultimate bad faith.