Jump to content
Dr. C

The Problem with Gay Christian Representation

Recommended Posts

So my last thread touched on way too many topics at once and that was my mistake.

Lets focus on the crux of the issue.

if you frame questions in ways that Christians will respond negatively, dox/threaten people, go after their livelihood or call them out for straight privilege then my faith is incompatible with your activism.

A closeted homosexual trying to protect themselves from a toxic family environment should hotness  be vilified nor is it your place  to force someone out of the closet. 

Privilege has its context but the implications of calling someone who is a homosexual homophobic and bullying them for their “straightness” is incompatible with loving your neighbor as yourself.

Putting yourself in other people’s positions matters. 

Asking the question how you can oppose gay marriage rhetorically is a sneaky way of saying “Why can’t  you just accept your invisible friend doesn’t exist?” It’s a dirty tactic and I despise it. My sexual orientation is not an atheism lobby so how dare you do it. 

And finally, validating anger is one thing.  Encouraging it to grow to make your own personal army of political attack dogs out of a minority is disgusting. 

Finally as someone who took Psych Major courses, misrepresenting social, cognitive and developmental psychology is misinformation and perpetuating it Is lying. 

As a gay Christsian, the ways in which I consider activism to be genuine Ian very cut and dry. 

If you are willing to glamorize anger and unforgiveness and ignore academics you are no more an ally to the LGBTQ community than a meth dealer is to a depression patient. 

If you insist on engaging in practices in my name that go against my beliefs and tell me to shut up and like it, you are not my ally. I don’t like to say you are my enemy because one of Satan’s names is “the enemy”.

I cannot in good consciousness support speaking to people’s inner darkness in an end justifies the means game. 

As for those who are conservative in leaning let me say,

Faith based homophobia is a misnomer. Having a problem with homosexuality means you don’t believe in a God that sent his Son to die for everyone s sins. You think the cross has limits. Limiting God Is doubt and doubt based homophobia by any other name is challenging God’s divine authority or in a word: Blasphemy.

its harsh but I didn’t see the fine print under the great commandment “Love your neighbor as yourself.” If you study the second part of this passage Love  the Lord your God with all your heart mind and soul, careful analysis will find one very important and indisputable fact. 

Love your neighbor as yourself=Loving God.

You want to oppose gay people? Go on right ahead but I will warn you it comes with the territory of opposing God. 

Now when it comes to something like gay marriage specifically I do cut some slack because it is a gross misapplication of honoring God. but more so it is a gross application of marriage. The legal side of it means nothing from a Biblical standpoint. 

. A Christian marriage is two things: Vow of lifelong commitment before God and fucking your partner whenever he or  she wants it unless you both decide to abstain for reasons of religious devotion for a season or you just choose not to together.. Nothing  more and nothing less. If you’re a Christian who thinks that’s sexist and ass backwards then fine, don’t get married by a pastor. That’s why judges do ceremonies but since you pressed the issue on gay people, I’ll be blunt. 

Now understandably you might as a straight person find gay sex repulsive but you know What’s i find repulsive? Thinking about my parents sex life. It’s not hateful to find sexual practices you don’t understand or want to visualize  repulsive . It’s where you go from there. 

Im very much a no man left behind person when it comes to activism. If you are hurting someone it needs to be changed and if you refuse to change then ally you are no more. That is my opinion but ask yourself if you are doing this for the community you care about or your own moral self gratification?

If the latter I have nothing more to say but if you are sincere then stop calling Mexicans homophobes for not understanding your Swahili metaphorically speaking. 

If you want o represent gay Christians you represent them in word and in deed. I’m not asking you to be a Christian I’m asking you to think like one and try a different approach.

That means no threats and no life ruining. Sound fair?

 

Edited by Dr. C

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm going to bite the bullet and say that there's several denominations of Christianity, not to mention the shitload of other religions out there. Now the fun thing about the Bible is that it's open for interpretation. It says Earth and the universe was made within sevenl days, I say it's made within seven billion years. The great flood covered the entire planet, I'm thinking it just flooded an canyon...Or the Ice Age had came to an violent end.

Nobody is born perfect or the same way, you know.

 

Edited by Armchair General

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Armchair General said:

I'm going to bite the bullet and say that there's several denominations of Christianity, not to mention the shitload of other religions out there. Now the fun thing about the Bible is that it's open for interpretation. It says Earth and the universe was made within sevenl days, I say it's made within seven billion years. The great flood covered the entire planet, I'm thinking it just flooded an canyon...Or the Ice Age had came to an violent end.

Nobody is born perfect or the same way, you know.

 

Open to interpretation is such a loaded statement.

The Strong Concordance gives  an objective baseline for biblical scholars both Christian and Secular..

As for the age of the earth... I’m giving it the Grinch treatment- not touchingnit with a 39.5 foot pole.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Homophobia is beyond simply acknowledging homosexuality as a sin right?

This is something that’s bothered me for some time. Because it’s definitely there in scripture, and I believe it, but I wouldn’t impose it on anyone or treat homosexuals any different from anyone else. Nor would I bring it up anywhere outside this comment because I really want clarification on this.

Usually homophobes are the people extremely and needlessly vocal about it and harassing homosexuals, right? I’ve really wanted clarification on this for some time.

Edited by Arcphoenix

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, Arcphoenix said:

Homophobia is beyond simply acknowledging homosexuality as a sin right?

This is something that’s bothered me for some time. Because it’s definitely there in scripture, and I believe it, but I wouldn’t impose it on anyone or treat homosexuals any different from anyone else. Nor would I bring it up anywhere outside this comment because I really want clarification on this.

Usually homophobes are the people extremely and needlessly vocal about it and harassing homosexuals, right? I’ve really wanted clarification on this for some time.

What is and is not homophobic depends on who you ask.

There are some people who define it as you do, then there are some how are a bit more wide with their definition of what is homophobic, whether it be justified or not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Arcphoenix said:

Homophobia is beyond simply acknowledging homosexuality as a sin right?

This is something that’s bothered me for some time. Because it’s definitely there in scripture, and I believe it, but I wouldn’t impose it on anyone or treat homosexuals any different from anyone else. Nor would I bring it up anywhere outside this comment because I really want clarification on this.

Usually homophobes are the people extremely and needlessly vocal about it and harassing homosexuals, right? I’ve really wanted clarification on this for some time.

Old Catholic superstition that sexual sin is the devil’s favorite because it’s two souls for the price of one sin taints the perspective ironically of Protestants who don’t understand that part of Christian heritage for obvious reasons.

I firmly believe in working with someone where they’re at  instead of attacking them because right or wrong, they sure aren’t going to accept homosexuals if they’re unemployed and I personally would rather not see them get fired. Now if someone just goes out of his way to rag on someone sure but if someone is talking about their political views with another person candidly, I mean do you expect them to lie? 

Now if they passed the threshold of saying and wind up doing as  in say discriminating in hiring practices , then it’s more clear.

I’m sorry but it’s one of those thing,s, it’s not a simple issue. There are man made doctrines and traditions that keep homophobia  very much alive and debunking them is more realistic than debunking God. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You've got until my mom comes back, so I'll see how much of this I can dissect.

 

5 hours ago, Dr. C said:

So my last thread touched on way too many topics at once and that was my mistake.

Lets focus on the crux of the issue.

if you frame questions in ways that Christians will respond negatively, dox/threaten people, go after their livelihood or call them out for straight privilege then my faith is incompatible with your activism.

A closeted homosexual trying to protect themselves from a toxic family environment should hotness  be vilified nor is it your place  to force someone out of the closet. 

Privilege has its context but the implications of calling someone who is a homosexual homophobic and bullying them for their “straightness” is incompatible with loving your neighbor as yourself.

Putting yourself in other people’s positions matters. 

Asking the question how you can oppose gay marriage rhetorically is a sneaky way of saying “Why can’t  you just accept your invisible friend doesn’t exist?” It’s a dirty tactic and I despise it. My sexual orientation is not an atheism lobby so how dare you do it. 

And finally, validating anger is one thing.  Encouraging it to grow to make your own personal army of political attack dogs out of a minority is disgusting.

Here's the common thread between all of this: force.  It's nice to have beliefs, but it's not nice to shove them down people's throats.

As for that last sentence, it depends on who you worship.  Some Christians seem to think that God is an angry one.

5 hours ago, Dr. C said:

I cannot in good consciousness support speaking to people’s inner darkness in an end justifies the means game.

The irony is that Jesus didn't coerce his followers, nor did he make outright threats, or just about anything else that you mentioned (anyone that wants to refute this point must do so with proper Scripture and interpretation - merely cherry-picking Bible verses will result in a suspension at minimum, because it's the lazy solution to an equally lazy approach.  Saying that you didn't see this will result in double the suspension.).

5 hours ago, Dr. C said:

As for those who are conservative in leaning let me say,

Faith based homophobia is a misnomer. Having a problem with homosexuality means you don’t believe in a God that sent his Son to die for everyone s sins. You think the cross has limits. Limiting God Is doubt and doubt based homophobia by any other name is challenging God’s divine authority or in a word: Blasphemy.

its harsh but I didn’t see the fine print under the great commandment “Love your neighbor as yourself.” If you study the second part of this passage Love  the Lord your God with all your heart mind and soul, careful analysis will find one very important and indisputable fact. 

Love your neighbor as yourself=Loving God.

You want to oppose gay people? Go on right ahead but I will warn you it comes with the territory of opposing God.

It really, REALLY depends on interpretation.  Some see it as "he's doing bad things to himself, so we have to stop him for his own good" - ultimately good intentions, but horrible execution.  Though if they see homosexuality as a special class of sin, then that's bullshit.  I'm pretty sure the verse said "love your neighbor", not "love your neighbor, except if he's gay".

5 hours ago, Dr. C said:

That means no threats and no life ruining. Sound fair?

I mean, the average person will probably agree to this. . .but who exactly is your audience?  And are you sure that they'll read this?

Venting is nice, but so is making sure that your message reaches the right ears - if they're willing to hear it.  Talking about sensitive subjects is tricky, and knowing when and how to approach it is vital.  Do it wrong, and your arguments won't hold, no matter how hard you try.  Remember the thing I mentioned about force earlier!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Homophobes, just like racists, aren't only those extremely harrassing or vocal about it.

If you hold prejudices of any kind towards homosexual people, you likely are a homophobe to me. You can leave homosexuals alone, even have them as friends and support their choices while still being a homophobe.

I'd consider believing homosexuality is a sin to be homophobic. 

Edited by Vince777

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Vince777 said:

Homophobes, just like racists, aren't only those extremely harrassing or vocal about it.

If you hold prejudices of any kind towards homosexual people, you likely are a homophobe to me. You can leave homosexuals alone, even have them as friends and support their choices while still being a homophobe.

I'd consider believing homosexuality is a sin to be homophobic. 

That may be true, but I've learned that throwing the term homophobia around can be counterproductive at best.  You get true bigots who think I should be thrown off a building or something, but then there's people who were just brought up being taught it was a sin, and may not have very much experience with gay, trans, etc.  If their first experience with an LGBT person is to be attacked when they didn't think they were being aggressive, it's just going to push them further into the anti LGBT camp.

Coming out to people, I've had this happen a few times.

Me: "Hey, I'm trans"

Them: "Oh, I don't really agree with that, but I still like you as a friend"

Yeah, it stings that they aren't 100% supportive, but if I disowned every friend that wasn't 100% behind me, I wouldn't have very many friends left.  I hope that if they see that LGBT people can just be normal, calm people like everybody else, they can eventually be won over.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Vince777 said:

If you hold prejudices of any kind towards homosexual people, you likely are a homophobe to me

i wouldn't go that far

as human being, holding prejudices is only natural, otherwise we'd either be plants/animals or be living in an uthopian world

 

as for the opening post, i used to be christian, but now i consider myself as agnostic, and i don't feel i have any right to criticize someone for being a very religious person or being absolutely opposite to the idea of following any religion

but sure, there are both good and bad aspects in religions: considering that i'm pessimistic by nature, i'm more inclined to see the bad side of things, and that's why i distanced myself from religions, but as i already said, i don't feel like judging anyone for what their beliefs are

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Rezzy said:

 

Coming out to people, I've had this happen a few times.

Me: "Hey, I'm trans"

Them: "Oh, I don't really agree with that, but I still like you as a friend"

Yeah, it stings that they aren't 100% supportive, but if I disowned every friend that wasn't 100% behind me, I wouldn't have very many friends left.  I hope that if they see that LGBT people can just be normal, calm people like everybody else, they can eventually be won over.

I find it very interesting that people who go to the 'hate the sin. love the sinner'  byline as an underhanded way of attacking you without acting like they're actually attacking you will invariably act like they're being personally attacked + tacitly acknowledge that the words being spoken are hateful if you symmetrically come at them with something to the effect of "I hate your beliefs and your lifestyle and I think your values and practices are objectively evil. But I love you--The Believer."   
 

8 hours ago, eclipse said:

Some Christians seem to think that God is an angry one.

Old Testament God is undoubtedly a God of wrath and vengeance.

God mellows out in the New Testament. (I hear that happens when you have a kid) 

Christianity in its original form is of course an offshoot of Old Testament Judaism. And then the various branches and sub-branches of Christianity have layered their respective salvation doctrines on top of that.  

With their varying interpretations of scripture, theological disagreements on how to apply the Old Word to the New Word, and political agendas dictating just how much of Angry God they still believe in.

But Angry God is the starting point. 

8 hours ago, eclipse said:

The irony is that Jesus didn't coerce his followers, nor did he make outright threats


So there's this fascinating little thing called The Jefferson Bible that I would encourage everyone to read: believer, non-believer, gay, straight, w/e.

https://www.nationallibertyalliance.org/files/docs/foundingdocs/Jefferson Bible.pdf

Its the New Testament as edited by Thomas Jefferson. 

What he did was edit out all claims of godhood, divine authority, and religiosity.  All secondhand accounts of things Jesus is purported to have said that came from someone other than Jesus himself.

And left in only the direct word of Jesus as a teacher and moral philosopher. On how to treat others. On how to be a good person. On how to live righteously.

And whats left over when you cut out all the spiritual fluff + just look at Jesus as another Socrates or Aristotle or Confucius--i.e. a philosopher handing down his philosophy to his students---is what Jefferson aptly calls "the most sublime and benevolent code of morals which has ever been offered to man."   

I do not disagree with that statement. 
________

...biggest irony of them all...

"Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye compass sea and land to make one proselyte, and when he is made, ye make him twofold more the child of hell than yourselves. Woe unto you, ye blind guides."

"Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye pay tithe of mint and dill and cummin, and have omitted the weightier matters of the law, justice, mercy, and faith: these ought ye to have done, without leaving the other undone."

"Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye make clean the outside of the cup and of the platter, but within they are full of extortion and excess."

"Even so ye also outwardly appear righteous unto men, but within ye are full of hypocrisy and iniquity."


...you can dissect that rebuke every way to Sunday, and anyway you look at it, its like Jesus is holding up a mirror to the modern Evangelicals.

Edited by Shoblongoo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Arcphoenix said:

Homophobia is beyond simply acknowledging homosexuality as a sin right?

“Homophobia” is a phobia of homosexuals so yes it is beyond simply acknowledging it as a sin or speaking against it.

13 hours ago, Arcphoenix said:

This is something that’s bothered me for some time. Because it’s definitely there in scripture, and I believe it, but I wouldn’t impose it on anyone or treat homosexuals any different from anyone else.

I’m glad you’re aware the Bible clearly states homosexuality is a sin.  A growing number of people choose to ignore that.

13 hours ago, Arcphoenix said:

Usually homophobes are the people extremely and needlessly vocal about it and harassing homosexuals, right? I’ve really wanted clarification on this for some time.

Yes, that basically sums it up.

Edited by Rukina

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Rukina said:

I’m glad you’re aware the Bible clearly states homosexuality is a sin.  A growing number of people choose to ignore that.

...As I am sure you are no doubt aware...

There are denominations within Christianity that hold everything in the Bible is divine revelation + 100% literal truth, and that such belief is required to be a practitioner of the Christian faith.  

There are denominations within Christianity that no not hold everything in the Bible is divine revelation + 100% literal truth, and that such belief is required to be a practitioner of the Christian faith.  
 

14 hours ago, Armchair General said:

I'm going to bite the bullet and say that there's several denominations of Christianity

This is a key point and one worth honing in on. This may perhaps be an oversimplification of the diversity of thought and divergence of belief and practice between denominations, but for the purposes of this conversation we may divide Christian denominations into the two general aforementioned categories:

1) Those that hold everything in the Bible is divine revelation + 100% literal truth, and that such belief is required to be a practitioner of the Christian faith.  (i.e.  the fundamentalists)

2)  Those that do not.

___________

To make a general statement that one who is LGBT cannot also be a practicing Christian or that they should be attacking their church rather than subservient to it for the sake of LGBT advocacy is error; that much is plain.

But when you start narrowing down the denominations and applying that general statement specifically to certain denominations...well now then I think it becomes very, very defensible.

And I submit for your consideration that for the reason you've just cited, it applies to the fundamentalist sects. 

You can be a Christian and and advocate for fair and equal treatment of the LGBT community. 

You cannot be a religious fundamentalist who clings to the literal truth of all things in scripture and asserts that any divergence from same is an abandonment of the faith and an advocate for fair and equal treatment of the LGBT community.

And I think thats really the nuanced distinction that needs to be made here.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, eclipse said:

You've got until my mom comes back, so I'll see how much of this I can dissect.

 

Here's the common thread between all of this: force.  It's nice to have beliefs, but it's not nice to shove them down people's throats.

As for that last sentence, it depends on who you worship.  Some Christians seem to think that God is an angry one.

The irony is that Jesus didn't coerce his followers, nor did he make outright threats, or just about anything else that you mentioned (anyone that wants to refute this point must do so with proper Scripture and interpretation - merely cherry-picking Bible verses will result in a suspension at minimum, because it's the lazy solution to an equally lazy approach.  Saying that you didn't see this will result in double the suspension.).

It really, REALLY depends on interpretation.  Some see it as "he's doing bad things to himself, so we have to stop him for his own good" - ultimately good intentions, but horrible execution.  Though if they see homosexuality as a special class of sin, then that's bullshit.  I'm pretty sure the verse said "love your neighbor", not "love your neighbor, except if he's gay".

I mean, the average person will probably agree to this. . .but who exactly is your audience?  And are you sure that they'll read this?

Venting is nice, but so is making sure that your message reaches the right ears - if they're willing to hear it.  Talking about sensitive subjects is tricky, and knowing when and how to approach it is vital.  Do it wrong, and your arguments won't hold, no matter how hard you try.  Remember the thing I mentioned about force earlier!

Agreed but as I said in the previous thread I do differentiate between allies and activists. You can say “but hey! I self identify as an activist and don’t say those things!” 

I could say I self identify as a Christian and don’t do these things either but semantics are a very fickle beast. For me I simply define an ally as someone who is there for you and an activist as someone who is there for themselves. That doesn’t mean I think you’re a selfish person because of your diction. 

It means I think patriarchy, privilege and interseciobality have been weaponized enough and abused by people who have never read an actual academic article of the subject that the bests tactic I can utilize is total disarmament. I weaponize the one word they all profess and that is that they are activists to make a point of disowning them. 

Okay... seriously this thread is approaching two pages. Multi quoting has officially jumped the shark. I did not think a sleeping pill would cause me this much trouble online so I’m just going to have to wait.

 

Edited by Dr. C

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Rukina said:

“Homophobia” is a phobia of homosexuals so yes it is beyond simply acknowledging it as a sin or speaking against it.

 

Homophobia is a term in use today that much transcends this sort of etymological deconstruction of the word as being simply a "fear" of homosexuals. 

This is the sort of thing that led to some of the most brash homophobes I know rejecting the label because "hey, I ain't afraid of faggots". People that insist that homophobia must only mean a fear are people that really dislike or distrust homosexuals but are not interested in being tagged with a hater label. 


 

 

Edited by Vince777

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Vince777 said:

Homophobia is a term in use today that much transcends this sort of etymological deconstruction of the word as being simply a "fear" of homosexuals. 

This is the sort of thing that led to some of the most brash homophobes I know rejecting the label because "hey, I ain't afraid of faggots". People that insist that homophobia must only mean a fear are people that really dislike or distrust homosexuals but are not interested in being tagged with a hater label. 


 

 

Yoda once said fear leads to anger, anger leads to hate and hate leads to suffering so I do agree that in a very roundabout way homophobia can mean what you say.

But semantically it is extremely counterintuitive. It’s kind of like feminists claiming they are egalitarian even though fem is in the root. 

I prefer anti-gay. It’s much more accurate but in conversations where my preferred term is not common I abstain from using it in consideration of not nitpicking other people. 

1 hour ago, Shoblongoo said:

...As I am sure you are no doubt aware...

There are denominations within Christianity that hold everything in the Bible is divine revelation + 100% literal truth, and that such belief is required to be a practitioner of the Christian faith.  

There are denominations within Christianity that no not hold everything in the Bible is divine revelation + 100% literal truth, and that such belief is required to be a practitioner of the Christian faith.  
 

This is a key point and one worth honing in on. This may perhaps be an oversimplification of the diversity of thought and divergence of belief and practice between denominations, but for the purposes of this conversation we may divide Christian denominations into the two general aforementioned categories:

1) Those that hold everything in the Bible is divine revelation + 100% literal truth, and that such belief is required to be a practitioner of the Christian faith.  (i.e.  the fundamentalists)

2)  Those that do not.

___________

To make a general statement that one who is LGBT cannot also be a practicing Christian or that they should be attacking their church rather than subservient to it for the sake of LGBT advocacy is error; that much is plain.

But when you start narrowing down the denominations and applying that general statement specifically to certain denominations...well now then I think it becomes very, very defensible.

And I submit for your consideration that for the reason you've just cited, it applies to the fundamentalist sects. 

You can be a Christian and and advocate for fair and equal treatment of the LGBT community. 

You cannot be a religious fundamentalist who clings to the literal truth of all things in scripture and asserts that any divergence from same is an abandonment of the faith and an advocate for fair and equal treatment of the LGBT community.

And I think thats really the nuanced distinction that needs to be made here.

 

The term fundamentalist is semantically problematic.

For years I self identified as one because I believed in the FUNDAMENTALS of the Christian Faith which are essentially the basics.

Feel free to quote the pm I sent you but believing that Jesus literally died to end your poverty and sickness a la word of faith is indeed more literal but some of these same preachers also had rebellious children and did not literally stolen them to death as Old Testament law would demand.

Now the ethical issues of their doctrines is an entirely different subject matter but where literalism is concerned,  you can’t claim everyone who gets that label is 100%

I will reiterate that the pm and all it’s particularities I sent you are fair game here to quote as you see fit. 

3 hours ago, Shoblongoo said:

I find it very interesting that people who go to the 'hate the sin. love the sinner'  byline as an underhanded way of attacking you without acting like they're actually attacking you will invariably act like they're being personally attacked + tacitly acknowledge that the words being spoken are hateful if you symmetrically come at them with something to the effect of "I hate your beliefs and your lifestyle and I think your values and practices are objectively evil. But I love you--The Believer."   
 

I am just going to have to say here that yeah it gets used that way but disguising  religious intolerance as rhetorical questions is just as bad if not worse because of the hypocrisy presented and is diabolically sneaky where a statement shows all of its flaws and malevolent intent but a question gives plausible deniability. It’s slimy and I hate it. 

I hate gossip to the nth degree. I’d rather break bread with someone who calls me a f****t or a chink eyed China man or heck even retarded than someone who says anything innocuous but mean behind my back. 

So what other solution for me is there around hating people like that than hating the sin and not the sinner.

Homosexuality is a very different animal admittedly but just because something is used with disingenuous motives does not make the statement itself invalid. 

Old Testament God is undoubtedly a God of wrath and vengeance.

God mellows out in the New Testament. (I hear that happens when you have a kid) 

Christianity in its original form is of course an offshoot of Old Testament Judaism. And then the various branches and sub-branches of Christianity have layered their respective salvation doctrines on top of that.  


With their varying interpretations of scripture, theological disagreements on how to apply the Old Word to the New Word, and political agendas dictating just how much of Angry God they still believe in.

But Angry God is the starting point. 

I will acknowledge the validity of the point but feel I must ignore it in thread because of its tangential nature.

I also don’t feel like i can do this subject justice without seriously reviewing  some literature I have in the subject. 

I would rather just ignore the point for now than bullshit you. 


So there's this fascinating little thing called The Jefferson Bible that I would encourage everyone to read: believer, non-believer, gay, straight, w/e.

https://www.nationallibertyalliance.org/files/docs/foundingdocs/Jefferson Bible.pdf

Its the New Testament as edited by Thomas Jefferson. 

What he did was edit out all claims of godhood, divine authority, and religiosity.  All secondhand accounts of things Jesus is purported to have said that came from someone other than Jesus himself.

And left in only the direct word of Jesus as a teacher and moral philosopher. On how to treat others. On how to be a good person. On how to live righteously.

And whats left over when you cut out all the spiritual fluff + just look at Jesus as another Socrates or Aristotle or Confucius--i.e. a philosopher handing down his philosophy to his students---is what Jefferson aptly calls "the most sublime and benevolent code of morals which has ever been offered to man."   

I do not disagree with that statement. 
________

...biggest irony of them all...

"Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye compass sea and land to make one proselyte, and when he is made, ye make him twofold more the child of hell than yourselves. Woe unto you, ye blind guides."

"Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye pay tithe of mint and dill and cummin, and have omitted the weightier matters of the law, justice, mercy, and faith: these ought ye to have done, without leaving the other undone."

"Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye make clean the outside of the cup and of the platter, but within they are full of extortion and excess."

"Even so ye also outwardly appear righteous unto men, but within ye are full of hypocrisy and iniquity."


...you can dissect that rebuke every way to Sunday, and anyway you look at it, its like Jesus is holding up a mirror to the modern Evangelicals.

On the same page there. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Shoblongoo said:

I find it very interesting that people who go to the 'hate the sin. love the sinner'  byline as an underhanded way of attacking you without acting like they're actually attacking you will invariably act like they're being personally attacked + tacitly acknowledge that the words being spoken are hateful if you symmetrically come at them with something to the effect of "I hate your beliefs and your lifestyle and I think your values and practices are objectively evil. But I love you--The Believer."   
 

Old Testament God is undoubtedly a God of wrath and vengeance.

God mellows out in the New Testament. (I hear that happens when you have a kid) 

Christianity in its original form is of course an offshoot of Old Testament Judaism. And then the various branches and sub-branches of Christianity have layered their respective salvation doctrines on top of that.  

With their varying interpretations of scripture, theological disagreements on how to apply the Old Word to the New Word, and political agendas dictating just how much of Angry God they still believe in.

But Angry God is the starting point.

Judges and both books of Kings touch upon the various reigns of rulers in Israel.  The number of them that said "and this king didn't walk with God" is pretty high.  Can't blame God for being angry.

4 hours ago, Shoblongoo said:

So there's this fascinating little thing called The Jefferson Bible that I would encourage everyone to read: believer, non-believer, gay, straight, w/e.


https://www.nationallibertyalliance.org/files/docs/foundingdocs/Jefferson Bible.pdf

Its the New Testament as edited by Thomas Jefferson. 

What he did was edit out all claims of godhood, divine authority, and religiosity.  All secondhand accounts of things Jesus is purported to have said that came from someone other than Jesus himself.

And left in only the direct word of Jesus as a teacher and moral philosopher. On how to treat others. On how to be a good person. On how to live righteously.

And whats left over when you cut out all the spiritual fluff + just look at Jesus as another Socrates or Aristotle or Confucius--i.e. a philosopher handing down his philosophy to his students---is what Jefferson aptly calls "the most sublime and benevolent code of morals which has ever been offered to man."   

I do not disagree with that statement.

Don't have time to sit down and read it right now, but this looks really interesting.  Thanks for sharing!

4 hours ago, Shoblongoo said:

...biggest irony of them all...


"Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye compass sea and land to make one proselyte, and when he is made, ye make him twofold more the child of hell than yourselves. Woe unto you, ye blind guides."

"Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye pay tithe of mint and dill and cummin, and have omitted the weightier matters of the law, justice, mercy, and faith: these ought ye to have done, without leaving the other undone."

"Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye make clean the outside of the cup and of the platter, but within they are full of extortion and excess."

"Even so ye also outwardly appear righteous unto men, but within ye are full of hypocrisy and iniquity."


...you can dissect that rebuke every way to Sunday, and anyway you look at it, its like Jesus is holding up a mirror to the modern Evangelicals.

This could extend to a lot people, all throughout history (some of the Catholic church of old, various rulers, etc.).  The fact that such a sentiment rings true even now says that human greed hasn't changed one bit.  You'd think we humans would've learned from history for the better, but alas, certain evangelical sects seek to repeat the sins of old.

2 hours ago, Dr. C said:

It means I think patriarchy, privilege and interseciobality have been weaponized enough and abused by people who have never read an actual academic article of the subject that the bests tactic I can utilize is total disarmament. I weaponize the one word they all profess and that is that they are activists to make a point of disowning them.

Make sure you're not committing one of the same fallacies as the group you profess to be against - lumping an entire group into a singular label.

 

Edited by eclipse

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, eclipse said:

Make sure you're not committing one of the same fallacies as the group you profess to be against - lumping an entire group into a singular label.

 

I don’t. 

But the brush strokes pretty broad when someone insists on asking “Why do you oppose gay marriage?”

As I’ve said before, hiding malicious intent behind a rhetorical question is a game of plausible deniability that I will not play and I will not have the issue of  my sexual orientation being turned into an exercise in mental masturbation. 

It’s not even the doing it’s the denial that gets to me.

i will not be represented by liars.

That aside, 

I’m not out to vilify secular people. It’s a very simple tactical decision to provoke snakes to bite.  If those specific people  want to speak to me they have to abandon the words they abuse or they are no ally of mine. 

If you're  mildly bothered by this then the tactic succeeds in separating you from the chaff. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Dr. C said:

I don’t. 

But the brush strokes pretty broad when someone insists on asking “Why do you oppose gay marriage?”

As I’ve said before, hiding malicious intent behind a rhetorical question is a game of plausible deniability that I will not play and I will not have the issue of  my sexual orientation being turned into an exercise in mental masturbation. 

It’s not even the doing it’s the denial that gets to me.

i will not be represented by liars.

That aside, 

I’m not out to vilify secular people. It’s a very simple tactical decision to provoke snakes to bite.  If those specific people  want to speak to me they have to abandon the words they abuse or they are no ally of mine. 

If you're  mildly bothered by this then the tactic succeeds in separating you from the chaff. 

You're making a ton of assumptions about motives, when it isn't your place to do so.  This rarely leads down a good path.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, eclipse said:

You're making a ton of assumptions about motives, when it isn't your place to do so.  This rarely leads down a good path.

Then why do people insist on asking the obvious?

The clear objective of the game is pin the bigotry on the Christian and I have no intention of playing.

If you are an atheist asking this question when the answer is UH DUH! What nuances am I overlooking here?  What possible positive intent is derived from asking Christians that question? 

There is no way that I have thought of to take the passive aggressive BS out of this kind of behavior.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was under the impression that many of the things humans commonly do are regarded as sins by Christianity. For example, judging others. A common theme for Christianity is that the concept that we are all sinners.

The umbrage people take with homosexuality and theology in particular is the fact that is specifically treated as "wrong" by some believers. It was probably regarded as a cultural wrong at the time because the human race was in a stage of procreation, which cannot happen for homosexuals.

I do feel for those in the LGBT community that remain faithful, as most of them have experienced self-doubt as a result of their beliefs. It's also not very surprising that those that turn away from religion can be resentful of what they view as discrimination against them they may have experienced.

Edited by Tryhard

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Tryhard said:

I was under the impression that many of the things humans commonly do are regarded as sins by Christianity. For example, judging others. A common theme for Christianity is that the concept that we are all sinners.

The umbrage people take with homosexuality and theology in particular is the fact that is specifically treated as "wrong" by some believers. It was probably regarded as a cultural wrong at the time because the human race was in a stage of procreation, which cannot happen for homosexuals.

I do feel for those in the LGBT community that remain faithful, as most of them have experienced self-doubt as a result of their beliefs. It's also not very surprising that those that turn away from religion can be resentful of what they view as discrimination against them they may have experienced.

I will say that I don’t begrudge LGBTQ people for ill will towards the church.

I wish them nothing but the best in life and I wish nothing but healing for their broken hearts.

I encourage forgiveness and understanding but I have my fair share of trust issues with the church. 

The issue is not whether or not the pain is justified but what you do with it. Feeding the beast does not make you a healthier and happier person. I went to very dark places that I really only left when I chose forgiveness.

Many ex Christians think that forgiveness is an excuse to let injustice slide but it’s not about letting people do bad things. It’s about not letting them do worse to you. The person forgiven never get a more out of it than the person who forgives not even close.  

1 hour ago, dragonlordsd said:

@Dr. C 

I mean, I belong to a Christian Denomination that supports gay marriage so... I agree with you, I guess? I'm just a little lost on what your point is.

My point is simply don’t play the game of pin the tail on the bigoted Christian.

Don’t ask loaded and rhetorical questions and don’t misrepresent people for more than what they are. 

I had to make a hard decision about associating with a. Friend people called sexist and racist. He was a young White man rejected by white girls and accused of homosexuality because of his nasally voice. He despised white women. 

But he was also very generous and treated me to dinners, was one of the only people to make me feel fully comfortable about my ethnic heritage. He honored my right to be white around white people and only mentioned my Korean heritage when praising it.

To be clear he didn’t “buy” my friendship or flatter me. He was very sincere in his appreciation of me so much so that I stood between him and a bunch of white gangbangers when he said something stupid  and I talked them down from beating the shot out of him.

i told them that he was young and stupid and that if they wanted to beat him for what he said to beat me up instead and they walked away.

At a certain point, the good has to weigh out the bad. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'll just add a thing here, kinda going where @Shoblongoo went with "Some Christians say the bible is 100% the law and some don't"

The Bible was written eons ago. Back in those days, it was perfectly acceptable for a man to marry his female slave without her consent and rape her. It was acceptable for a man to do this to multiple female slaves. If a woman wanted a divorce, they beat her and threw rocks at her. This was also perfectly acceptable.

Therefore, when the Bible says "marriage should only be between a man and a woman and anything else is sinning", I take it as a sign of the time it was written in. We do not throw rocks at divorce procedures today nor do we keep slaves and rape them. With the changing times, views on what is acceptable and not acceptable must also change. 

I just skimmed the topic, but I don't think this point was made yet.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...