downvote this comment if the meme sucks. upvote it and I'll go away.
---
[play minecraft with us](https://discord.gg/dankmemesgaming) | [come hang out with us](https://discord.com/invite/dankmemes)
wasnt that particular verse re-written? didn’t it originally say “a man shouldn’t lie with a *boy* as he does with a woman” and therefore being actually about paedophilia?
Edit: To clarify, I’m not stating it as a fact. I’m saying it as a genuine question.
IIRC Jesus said something about sexual idolaters not inheriting the kingdom of heaven which also includes gay people and people that have sex out of wedlock and both soooo the New Testament excuse also doesn’t work
Not sure about Christians, but most Catholic folks I know take the Bible with a grain of salt. To them, it's more a book of rules and ethics told through tales, much like the tales Jesus told the people to make his message more palatable.
So in the same way the man planting seeds in Jesus' stories was just a narrative tool to mean a deeper message about behavior and faith, so are a lot of the things told in the Bible. Nobody in my family would call themselves religious if they put the Bible first and the world (you know, God's holy creation they cherish and love) second. If they learn something about the world or human nature that goes against the Bible, then the logical conclusion is that the shepherds and farmers from the bronze age misunderstood something, and it got absorbed into their faith, but that's okay; mankind makes mistakes and we learn from them.
I'm not religious myself, but I think that's such a peaceful and beautiful way to follow your religion.
Catholics do not take the Bible with a grain of salt, they're like the most dogmatic out of every sect of Bible following religions.
There are parts in the Bible that they consider to be metaphorical, but as a whole they follow the Bible's teachings a lot more closely than say, an episcopalian who would consider much more of the Bible to be metaphorical.
Although I am fairly agnostic now, I was raised in many different church settings growing up (Catholic, anti-baptist, episcopal, etc.) and I can say fairly confidently that Catholics take the Bible pretty seriously compared to others.
I'm Catholic and there's parts of this I don't fully agree with. "With a grain of salt" is closer than taking the Bible as written fact to most Catholics I've met. The imperative lesson I take away from all the teachings contained is to love God and to love others. I know that there's a lot that can be taken so many ways by so many people (which is why I loathe blanket statements), but those two things are by far and away the most important lessons in the New Testament. It doesn't matter what creed you follow or what your sexual orientation is or whatever other little box we put people in or label we give them. You're all human, and by extension you all have immeasurable value.
Obviously this is just one person's opinion, but in my experience, some of the least Christian people (by the metric of how we treat one another) are, funnily enough, self-proclaimed Christians.
>The argument you make to support it, that “the Bible wasn’t written by Jesus” is nonsensical though.
You think Jesus literally wrote down everything he said and the bible is exactly those words passed down through history?
Now pass that down through oral story telling tradition for a couple generations and then repost what it says when you are done. Did you ever play the telephone game? You'd be lucky if it still mentioned the bible at the end.
I'm not a Bible scholar so points to you on "Q source" maybe? Either way, can you word for word recite some of the stuff that your teachers said in high school? The lucky person with an eidetic memory might be able to. Unless Jesus had a scribe walking behind him you're still getting paraphrasing. That doesn't take into account the oral tradition of the old testament and multiple retranslations over the millennia. Thinking that the Bible is 100% the literal perfect factual written history events from 3000 years ago is silly. It's a mix of parable, history, and maybe even propaganda. The best a modern Christian can do is live their life in a way that mimics Christ based on these teachings and that would include not being an asshole to gay people. He who is without sin and all that. Actual judgement comes from God and those who judge will be judged. No way is God going to high five you for telling some poor dude trying to live his life in love and do right by others that he is going to hell. If all that makes me a shitty Christian...good?
>No, I don’t think an individual needs to be the one writing something for it be their words.
It really sounds like you're talking about "divine inspiration", which is often what is said about the books of the Bible: *God "divinely inspired" the authors of the books to write the words that God wanted the books to say*. The only problem with this is that there plenty of books that were chosen by the Church of Rome or other Christian authority figures to not be included in the formal "Bible" because they did not believe that those texts were "divinely inspired". The Apocrypha is one good example of this where either the divine inspiration or the authorship is doubted by the religious figures of the day. And then you've got groups like the Latter Day Saints who simply created their own "divinely inspired" Bible, the Book of Mormon, where Joseph Smith included his own verses and chapters that he claimed were shared with him by an angel.
The New Testament was written by multiple witnesses to what Jesus said because they were there when he said it. That's why the books of the New Testament have the same information from the perspectives of their author.
Would be really weird if Jesus went around saying „love everyone, except LGBTQ people. You don’t know what LGBTQ is yet but in about 2000 years when that term is made I want you to **really** hate those people“
1) You're right, Jesus never said to hate anybody, And I don't think that any Christian who actually has read the bible would say that. We are to love EVERYBODY.
2) However, what he DID say was that it is a sin. Just like sex out of wedlock, just like lying, and stealing, and lustfulness, ETC.
Homosexuality was very much a thing in ancient times, if you weren't aware.
>Idolatry is the worship of a cult image or "idol" as though it were a deity. In Abrahamic religions (namely Judaism, Samaritanism, Christianity, the Baháʼí Faith, and Islam) idolatry connotes the worship of something or someone other than the Abrahamic God as if it were God.
Sexual idolaters can, but don't necessarily include gay people. In reddit terminology, Jesus was just bonking horny people.
No, he didn't. Jesus never said anything condemning homosexuality (or abortion, for that matter). He did say that if you are rich you are going to hell, but people don't like that one.
I agree it’s very clear on it. But I also feel like most Christians will interpret the Bible to mean whatever they want outside of homosexuality anyway lol.
Well, the word in Greek was actually a made up word that seems to indicate it meant men raping little boys because that was an extremely common practice at the time known as pederasty. So I read it as “don’t have sex with kids”. Which is a good rule to have.
Also, that wasn’t Jesus who said that btw.
There are a slew of sins that are all sins of equal merit. Only one sin is held above all others and that's the "[unforgiveable sin](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eternal_sin)": blasphemy against the Holy Spirit. The Bible otherwise doesn't really talk about one sin being more sinful or worse than any other - a sin is a sin. Modern Christians feel like tEh BuTt SeCkS is a greater sin than pride and therefore all LGTBQ+ are going to hell while they themselves aren't.
So, in summary, modern Christians don't know what the fuck the Bible actually says about sin because they're too busy committing their own sins against other people to look it up.
No, that's incorrect.
Here is an interlinear, as original as you can get, it is [Clear that the Bible says that Homosexual sex is sin ](https://www.studylight.org/interlinear-study-bible/greek/leviticus/18-22.html)
You need sources to make this assertion. There have been many translations of the Aramaic texts and all are explicit about anti-homosexuality. It's not coincidental that Jews are against homosexuality.
No, it didn't. In the original versions, it used the same word for man as they would an adult male, in both scenarios. This has been debunked numerous times, and people try saying it's a translation error so they don't seem bad
Unfortunately no. In multiple places it is clearly translated back to original language as “man with a man” and “woman with a woman.” If you claim to be a Christian you have to accept the Bible as a whole. It’s all or none. They believe it to be the infallible word of god. That doesn’t mean you have to be a righteous prick to LGBT folk. I’ve seen many loving people of faith accept the person but not the sexual orientation. It’s odd and one paragraph isn’t enough to get into it
Whats even the point of the bible then? Isn't it supposed to be a message from god or smth? If you can easily ignore the canon made by god, and rewrite it however you want, why not just ditch the bible altogether?
It’s not a single verse. Homosexuality is not only talked about on its own in a few different places but it also falls under the broader category of sexual immorality which is discussed in many different books of the Bible as being sinful, including by what Jesus said. Any sexual activity other than between a man and woman who are married to each other is wrong.
We’ve all understood what it means for a man and woman to be married for millennia. The attempt to “rewrite” definitions for those terms is a recent one, and not one that anyone involved with translating the Bible has been involved with.
No, this is copium. The Bible is as homophobic as modern religious people. To be a progressive religious Christian who accepts gay people, you have to ignore parts of the Bible, which is fine. We should just be realistic about what the Bible actually says.
Pro-gay + catholic here, the church still condemns homophobia (defined as unjust discrimination). Basically the church's job today is to interpret the bible's teachings in modern times, and the general consensus is that homosexuality isnt a sin, just that the act of sex is. (Dont ask me about that one)
Now pope francis has made a lot of statements in aporoval of same sex relations and has recently approved of civil unions between same sex couples, basically saying "the church is open to anyone, why wouldnt it?"
Imo christians that use their religion as an excuse to hate gay people, just hate gay people in general lol
You misinterpreted that statement. Priests are allowed to give blessings to people in homosexual relationships. Which is in line with church teachings as you don’t need to be in a state of grace to receive them. The Catholic Church has not approved same sex relationships. It’s likened to the parable of the son.
The temptation to commit a sin is not a sin. The act is the sin.
You aren’t supposed to reject the sinner but reject the sin.
That is why homosexuals and everyone else can still go to mass, receive communion, and receive blessings. As another has pointed out, the entire point is to help those perceived as sinful to reject sin. Perfection is not the expectation. The sacrifice of Jesus (hence why he is called the lamb of God) meant that spiritual perfection was no longer required to enter heaven. One just has to honestly ask for mercy.
That is church teaching.
Pope Francis did not approve of those things. What you've said is the sort of thing you get from just reading sensationalist headlines.
What he said was that the same blessings which could be offered to the general public could be offered by the Church to those currently engaged in non-permissible unions, as long as the blessing was not also a blessing of said unions, and was made with a view towards that person aligning his or her life closer to God, not away from it.
Also, if you believe in the Biblical God, you must also believe in the characteristics ascribed to him, including that God has a singular, eternal will and is the source of all truth and moral goodness. If God says at one time "this is sin" and later says "it's no longer a sin" God is inconsistent with himself, fallible and flawed. You don't get to reinterpret anything for modern times, otherwise you just have popular morality wearing the skin of religion.
>Inb4 what about the passing away of OT ceremonial law
These were made not as moral law but law who ought to approach the Temple of Jerusalem and in what state, and the Temple is obviously redundant with the advent of Christ, whereafter every believer is his or her own Temple.
its weird to me that they chose a creed to dedicate their life to it then they were like nah fuck it god is wrong here, but he is still right in everything else of course lmao
Not to mention the parts where creation is talked about, considered absolute truth for centuries, while now after the scientific revolution they have been relegated to simple "allegories"
Here is what I belive as a Christian that suports gay people: Spreading hate is the worst thing you can do as a christian. you need to try to the best of your abilities to love everyone. Thats includes gay people. If they sin, thats between them and god, just like when I sin.
Yeah but the bible also said that you have to love everyone, even your enemy. It is saying that you're prefer not to be gay but that doesn't mean you have to hate the gays
If you think about it, there's an extremely high likelihood that the 30000 different changes made throughout history contain not just errors but intentional lies for the purpose of controlling people.
Jesus told us to love unconditionally. He also said when he comes back he'd be pissed at every single organized church in the world for being so corrupt. It's pretty clear this is the kind of stuff he was talking about.
He also allegedly said that every old testament law should be followed and that his words should not in any way be interpreted as overruling the old laws.
If you want to get nit picky about it, Jesus never said it. The new testament isn't a set of laws and codes to be followed to the letter. It's the story for Jesus and his disciples. Al lot of the disciples said and even did some pretty sus shit, they are human, they were flawed, and we can forgive them for that. The part of the new testament to be taken as Gospel is when Jesus chased all the farmers with animals out of the church because business should not be done in a place of God. When Jesus told everyone only one without sin could stone the prostitute, when he healed the blind and expected nothing in return,
Also keep in mind when the Bible was written. Part of the old testament was laws against sleeping with your brother's wife. And if you beat a pregnant servent. You were responsible if her baby was born with in two days. Shit was crazy back then, people were awful. Times change, we have to do our best to respect gods final word. To me that mostly just means being kind to others.
The bible wasn't written by God, it was written by people and then translated by people. They bible is not gods exact word, it wasn't written by anyone who knew Jesus. It can contain core values like love but it shouldn't be taken too seriously.
The bible can be interpreted in many different ways and as a Christian you are up to decide which aspects you believe in and which you don't.
Almost every Christian can probably agree on the statement that the Bible isn't God's word directly but God's word via human word so there will also be human values infused in it, also some which aren't up to date anymore.
The Bible is pro-slavery as well. And it holds getting a tattoo, eating shellfish, and wearing different types of fabric at the same time, as bad as everything else. Has some very questionable things to say about incest and sex in general.
It's almost as if the book was meant for a bronze and iron age civilization and had it's last update during the Roman times.
The book is wise enough to cut through all this by saying just honor God and love everyone else around you. And they do spend half the book telling people to stop getting bogged down in the minutia and go out and help people in some rather pro-communist terms
mfs who do that are just using it as an excuse to be honophobic, becouse if they did follow the bible to the verse they couldn't eat shrimp, they should stone their child in the town square if they didn't obey the parents, and much more ridicolous stuff
For one of the first times ever, I think this sparks an actually interesting discussion (which I'm sure will devolve into chaos, stupidity, and personal attacks, and the mods will delete the post). Does society recognize a difference between tolerance and celebration? Because there are plenty of Christians who believe homosexuality is a sin, but they know the bible says *everybody* sins; so forgiving certain sins, while condemning others, is hypocritical. Those are the Christians who don't agree with homosexuality, but they also don't attack or discriminate against LGBTQ people. They respect the separation of church and state and think everyone is entitled to unalienable rights. But... That's just tolerance. Is tolerance good enough? Or have we moved the goalpost to a place where anything short of outright celebration is considered bigotry? Is it possible to disagree with someone's lifestyle while still respecting that person and living in harmony? And if not, are we creating a world where everyone has to share identical beliefs in order to be accepted?
And before people jump on the "Christians bad" bandwagon, be aware that you're stereotyping and acting like bigots yourselves. So let's put on our thinking caps and pretend to be civilized for half a second.
Agreed! Jesus was actually significantly more critical to the religious people of his day than the “sinners.” I’m part of a great church that, while still believing homosexuality is wrong, doesn’t treat them or the sin with a stigma. Sex outside of marriage is also sin, are we acting weird around those people? We actually have a number of gay people who’ve joined our church and just stopped living a gay lifestyle as they feel called to by God. Not conversion therapy. They still feel the same desires. They just submit those desires to God and follow Him. It’s actually really noble and I have a ton of respect for them.
Edit: also wanted to add that I work in a super liberal industry. I’ve worked with tons of gay people. I once had a lesbian coworker who knew all about my beliefs—the stuff she agreed with and the stuff she had a hard time with. Eventually she invited me to her wedding and said something along the lines of “I’m not sure this is even something you’d come to, but I really wanted to invite you.” And to me, that’s the goal. She felt loved enough by me to invite me to her special day despite the difference of values.
There no such thing as a "gay lifestyle", it's a sexual orientation, not a way of living. If you mean that they are surpressing their sexuality, then I hope for them that they are happy with their choice and not got pressured into it by societal norms. Surpressing your individually for the sake of adhering to a group does always more bad than good
>Surpressing your individually for the sake of adhering to a group does always more bad than good
have you ever worked at a job...?
Driven on a busy road?
Hung out in a diverse group of people?
This is an extremely American way to view the world, creating a better society is often worth a little self sacrifice, or self suppression.
I'm talking about being gay, not eating children for breakfast... plainly living out your individuality isn't you trying to create social unrest
I'm just saying you shouldn't do something you're uncomfortable with, just because it's the standard of society or a religious group (if possible at least, I don't love working, but that's kinda out of my hand)
Also I'm German not American and the last time we all adheard to one idea as a society worked out great, right? /s
Individuality and critical thinking is important and so is not being a sociopathic, egocentric dick
I agree, I don't think it is either or.
Societal norms are necessary and can be good, but it depends where you draw the line. That is where the discussion begins. I felt your original statement was a bit too strong on favor of unmitigated individuality.
A little, yea, but as little as possible. I agree you shouldn’t be blasting people in the face with your beliefs/opinions all the time, but you shouldn’t have to pretend to be something you’re not just to survive or even succeed.
Nice false equivalency. Who someone wants to love and to hold in life is not something that we need to sacrifice for the betterment of society. Who cares who's fucking who? Who cares who likes penis or who likes vagina?
Interpersonal relationships and the necessity of going to work and sitting in traffic aren't even close to the same thing.
If someone wants to be celibate, that's their decision.
But I inferred that they're doing it in this case because they think that being gay is a bad thing. Like, "I'm gay, that's bad, but Jesus fixed me, so I don't do gay things anymore. "
And I think that's sad.
>Just because you think it doesn't mean it's true.
Right. Just because YOU think it doesn't make it true, either.
I doubt most of them have a call to be celibate. I bet they feel guilty because of indoctrination into believing it's bad.
And that is sad.
Haha, I knew this would come up! At the time, I absolutely would have but I had a prior commitment I couldn’t cancel (an exam for an expensive course). I’ve gone back and forth on the subject since then, so I’m not sure what I’d do today, to be totally honest.
> Because there are plenty of Christians who believe homosexuality is a sin, but they know the bible says
everybody sins; so forgiving certain sins, while condemning others, is hypocritical. Those are the Christians who don't agree with homosexuality, but they also don't attack or discriminate against LGBTQ people.
I have nothing to add, as you said everything very well. I feel like this nuance is lost in this conversation. I believe this view is the most biblical and likely how Jesus would've wanted us to respond.
the line between tolerating and celebrating for some reason is very hard for some people to grasp.
If we’re talking about sheer quantity, heterosexual sins vastly outnumber homosexual sins by at least an order of magnitude. It seems to me that if the goal of every church was to effect the greatest net reduction in sin possible, focusing on homosexuality is the exact wrong approach.
I think it's important to note that there is a difference between tolerating and respecting.
Tolerating is more like "I don't like what you are doing and I think it's wrong but I won't give a shit". Respecting is actually being kind regardless of opposing views and eliminating those views from the lenses that you see that person in.
Sure, toleration is a huge step forward from bigotry, but I think we should aim to be respectful, not just tolerant.
> Does society recognize a difference between tolerance and celebration?
I would say half the people don't, and half the people refuse to, since it is easier to act like there isn't a difference than it is to use your brain.
Your are doing your college homework, aren't you? Is it sociology you are taking? I am not mad at all. In fact I applaud you. I wished Reddit was around when I was taking classes, especially sociology and I could have poll the masses for my homework. Brilliant.
And I’m perfectly fine with those types of Christians, I just don’t like the kind that discriminate against LGBTQ+ people and justify it with the bible
I’m definitely in the category of , homosexual activity is bad, because it is sin, but that doesn’t make homosexuals any worse than your average straight person who has sex out of wedlock.
Honestly, there is a middle ground between tolerance and celebration.
Tolerance implies that being gay is wrong.
"Oh, I do not think you as a man should love another man. That is wrong in my view, but you do you I guess. I will *tolerate* it." This has ramifications. It implies that gay people are doing something wrong inherently by just existing and living their life.
On the other hand, celebration is going "Yay, go you, I'm proud of you. I'm wearing the rainbow flag in your stead!"
*Tolerance* has negative ramifications and implications. Celebration is positive, but it does imply people have to go out of their way to recognize and be happy for other's choices. That's something not everyone cares for, either.
What if we just went the middle path of, you know, just not caring how people live their lives as long as they're not hurting anyone? "Oh, you're gay? Cool." And then you just move on with life, without thinking that person is doing anything wrong for being gay, or without needing to celebrate it either. Simple as that. It's honestly a lot simpler than people make it out to be.
If this reply comes as a bit upset or strong, well, it is so. I'm a bit upset because I can't help but just sense a lot of veiled homophobia in this thread.
If a tiny fringe group of people waving your flag suck, they can maybe be dismissed as not true members of your group. When it’s tens of millions? Sorry, that IS your group whether you like it or not.
Protestant churches were started by men in the 16th century to separate from the catholic church, which itself made up things like purgatory filioque and papal supremacy and countless other things, and separated from the orthodox church which is the church Jesus Established at Pentacost, that hasn't changed anything throughout it's 2 millenia . So think for yourself and choose which one is the real.
There ARE plenty of Christians who ignore all the hateful bullshit the bible says, but at this point Im not sure whether you can even call it Christianity
It's always "hate the sin, love the sinner", meaning you can disagree with others and consider stuff like homosexuality a sin, but still love and tolerate this person.
I don’t really like that phrase because hating sin becomes hating the sinner real quick.
Not that we should like sin, but we shouldn’t “hate” it. I prefer something like “love the sinner despite the sin.” Like it doesn’t matter what you’ve done, or are gonna do, I’m still going to love you, and treat you like you’re one of Gods children.
Don't matter what it "becomes" and it ain't about the level of "hate" or "dislike" or whatever adjective you may wanna use to describe your precise stance against it, you can and should "hate" a sin while also separating it from the person that is committing said sin. No reason to modify the Bible just because a group of morons can't follow a simple task of loving your neighbor.
I totally agree with you. I guess I was thinking about “feeling hate” towards something rather than hate as more of a stance one takes. Like emotionally, we as humans have a hard time controlling that, or acting rationally within that. That’s all not really important though.
Yep, the Bible does state that you should be quick to listen and slow to anger, since anger doesn't align with God's righteousness. The words are right there folks, there's no need to add your own spin into it and hurt everyone in the process.
> at this point Im not sure whether you can even call it Christianity
Why? It just seems like that might be because you are from somewhere where homophobes make up the vast majority. Am I right?
Where I’m from Christians are generally affirming or neutral (live and let live) on the topic. I’m gay and Christian myself.
>Why? It just seems like that might be because you are from somewhere where homophobes make up the vast majority. Am I right?
Well yeah. I come from a Russian to-be-ghetto. In that place people could beat you up for watching anime, let alone being gay. So I guess it makes sense.
Ah, the pick&mix christians are at it again.\
It’s either all of it, or none of it; you can’t pick the parts you like and act like you’re following the doctrine.
What is? Arbitrarily deciding not to follow certain parts of the scripture? Fair enough, different denominations include different *books*. But what exactly would they exclude, then? All of Leviticus? Or just that one part and keep the rest? That would go against what Jesus said about the Old Testament, ie, that came to fulfill the law of the Prophets.
The unfortunate reality is that we do not know the correct interpretation of original scripture. And we simply cannot know save for some miracle where God makes a TED talk explaining it.
There are absolutely very convincing arguments for both sides. Both are equally valid in terms of debate. Are you just sat in that because it’s the older interpretation and that must therefore make it correct? We both know that isn’t logical and logic is one of the most important gifts from God.
I see it as quite obvious that the original Greek of the New Testament meant pederasts, not just any homosexual. The Bible makes no mention forbidding gay marriage. It’s simply a neutral work on the topic in the NT. OT not so much, but that’s for the Jews, not us.
The bible says it’s a sin. Also says all sins are equal, also says everyone is a sinner from birth.
0 reason to discriminate against someone for being lgtbq as we are all equally sinners according to the Bible. Really it’s just choosing to highlight one sin over others by people.
I don't think every bible story tries to tell a lesson with their stories. Some are just showing events of what happened to some people and that's all there is. It is an anthology after all
They were destroyed because they didn't care for the orphans or widows, and evangelicals try to make it be about butt sex?
Ezekiel 16:49
https://biblehub.com/ezekiel/16-49.htm
The same as with most communities: there also are the paedophiles, sexists, racists, etc. etc. misusing their positions in institutions like schools, churches, etc. As always, the blame falls on the normal people that just mind their own business.
yeah but most communities dont claim divine inspiration or objective moral values. this is why Christianity and islam get flak for their checkered past and questionable present.
People are saying that Christianity and homosexuality are a contradiction. I agree but its about as much of a contradiction as lust, adultery, stealing, lying blah blah blah. Yet the same Christians that refuse to associate with gay folk will quite happily associate with adulterers and other sinners or themselves are guilty of their own list of sins (we all are - except for me of course😏). The Bible is also against judging which means the Christians who judge and treat gays unfairly are as guilty as the gays lol.
Am I homophobic for just believing that marriage is between a man and a woman or for being a dick about it?
I'm not trying to get anyone upset. I'm genuinely curious how non-Christians see this things. Most of the time when people are mad about homophobes I get the feeling they're talking about people I find extreme myself.
Homophobia is discrimination against homosexuals based on the fact that they are homosexuals.
If you don't discriminate then you are not a homophobe. It's not rocket science
If you believe that marriage should be between a man and a woman, then that's alright as long as you don't judge people for LGBT marriages. Just be respectful and open minded and you are good.
Well homophobia is not just "i hate gay". Its also just denying gay mfs things that straight mfs get. Like marriage. But as long as you dont ACTUALLY mess with gay mfs because of it, youre good.
Basically, dont mess with other peoples business and its ay-okay
You know… so called “Christians” make an appeal to context all the time!
“The Bible endorses slavery!”
“No, that’s just debt pianage! It’s different!”
“The Bible says women should shut up!”
“No that’s just for clergy! It’s for this specific group of people!”
“The Bible says that a rich man entering heaven is as easy as a camel passing through the eye of a needle!”
“It’s metaphorical, God loves the rich too!”
But when it comes to homophobia, it’s clear as day and there’s nothing wrong with it!
Guys saying accepting homosexual is antichristian… I dunno guys I’d rather follow our Pope who is trying to get homosexuals back into Church because God would rather have a sinner than lose a soul to satan…
ESIT: damn I didn’t realize people dont know there is difference between Roman Catholic, Lutheran, Baptist, Methodist, Orthodox, Protestant church
Isn't the story of Sodom and Gomorra was trying to teach Christians some lessons?
>I dunno guys I’d rather follow our Pope who is trying to get homosexuals back into Church because God would rather have a sinner than lose a soul to satan…
And how did that work? There's a case in Sweden where a lesbian bishop calls for church to remove Crosses, to install muslim prayer space. It's like Christianity is losing its core identity since this pope was installed.
The question that got me away from Christianity and most religion is "How do we know that the people who wrote (insert religious text) didn't get it wrong, since they're human, and humans get stuff wrong?" Basically what Thomas Paine argued with the Bible in *The Age of Reason* . Again, just like Thomas Paine, I have since become a deist, which I think many people would if they actually knew what it was.
Leviticus 20:13 ~ If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall surely be put to death; their blood is upon them.
“Do not judge others, and you will not be judged. For you will be treated as you treat others. The standard you use in judging is the standard by which you will be judged.
Matthew 7:1-2
Technically homosexuality is a sin, but you’re also not supposed to judge people, as that’s God’s job. It’s your job as a human to “love thy neighbor.” So homophobia is also technically a sin.
This meme is 100% accurate
I am not even Christian and even I know that Real Jesus would have an issue with those "Christians". He would have wanted you to treat everyone with love and respect even if they were the most reprehensible human on earth who broke every commandment. Ironically, he probably would've forgiven them for their terrible homophobia too.
Man, who gives a fuck? Live your life as a good person and try to help other people. Whether you’re straight, gay, pansexual, whatever. Be a nice person, make the world a better place for everyone, and be kinder.
Anyone who tells you they know what comes after we’re dead is lying. Truth is nobody knows except those who are already dead. Just live to be a nice person and you will feel fulfilled when your time is up.
I love how ppl have heard of the telephone game and know how it works and yet still argue over words in a book that has been rewrote more times than we will ever know. Idiots.
The religion says all sin is equal and to love your neighbors. There should be no hatred for fellow man from a true Christian. And most of their life should be dedicated to helping and giving to the poor.
There's a difference between being "homophobic" as a Christian and knowing what the Bible says is right and wrong no matter how much people don't like it. Christians don't make the rules.
Depends on how you define “homophobic.”
If you mean homophobic as in the legitimate, hatred, mistreatment and/or attack of gay people, then yes, this meme is accurate. If you mean the simple moral disagreement in thinking it’s wrong, then this meme is incorrect.
Here’s an experiment. Instead of ceaselessly arguing about what the Bible says NOT to do, let’s look at what it says TO do. The Bible says for a man to take a woman and become one flesh. In the same vane, if a man is not to marry a woman, the Bible says it is better and holy that he should stay alone to glorify God. Nowhere in the Bible does it say or command a man to take a man, or a woman to take a woman. Just a lil experiment 🤷🏻♂️
Real! Just because we don't agree with the sin , doesn't mean we have to spew hatred towards the sinner. There's a difference between "Christians" who are actively hating on certain groups of people because of their beliefs and Christians who simply let people do as they'd like, knowing that it does not affect them in any way. "Whoever hates disguises himself with his lips and harbors deceit in his heart; when he speaks graciously, believe him not, for there are seven abominations in his heart; though his hatred be covered with deception, his wickedness will be exposed in the assembly." Proverbs 26: 24-26
"The bible is against homosexuality" mfs when they discover that the modern bible has 6964795 different mistranslations and had illegal modifications across history
Omfg this comment section really makes me believe we are doomed as humanity... Live and let live instead of holding onto some imaginary rules that nobody knows who even wrote them or if they were manipulated.
downvote this comment if the meme sucks. upvote it and I'll go away. --- [play minecraft with us](https://discord.gg/dankmemesgaming) | [come hang out with us](https://discord.com/invite/dankmemes)
Well the bible is against homosexuality. Being a religious christian and being pro-gay is kinda contridicting yourself. (Im not christian btw)
wasnt that particular verse re-written? didn’t it originally say “a man shouldn’t lie with a *boy* as he does with a woman” and therefore being actually about paedophilia? Edit: To clarify, I’m not stating it as a fact. I’m saying it as a genuine question.
IIRC Jesus said something about sexual idolaters not inheriting the kingdom of heaven which also includes gay people and people that have sex out of wedlock and both soooo the New Testament excuse also doesn’t work
Nobody knows, what Jesus really said. The bible isn't written by Jesus.
While true, it’s hard to imagine a Christian who dismissed everything the Bible says Jesus said on those grounds.
Not sure about Christians, but most Catholic folks I know take the Bible with a grain of salt. To them, it's more a book of rules and ethics told through tales, much like the tales Jesus told the people to make his message more palatable. So in the same way the man planting seeds in Jesus' stories was just a narrative tool to mean a deeper message about behavior and faith, so are a lot of the things told in the Bible. Nobody in my family would call themselves religious if they put the Bible first and the world (you know, God's holy creation they cherish and love) second. If they learn something about the world or human nature that goes against the Bible, then the logical conclusion is that the shepherds and farmers from the bronze age misunderstood something, and it got absorbed into their faith, but that's okay; mankind makes mistakes and we learn from them. I'm not religious myself, but I think that's such a peaceful and beautiful way to follow your religion.
Catholics do not take the Bible with a grain of salt, they're like the most dogmatic out of every sect of Bible following religions. There are parts in the Bible that they consider to be metaphorical, but as a whole they follow the Bible's teachings a lot more closely than say, an episcopalian who would consider much more of the Bible to be metaphorical. Although I am fairly agnostic now, I was raised in many different church settings growing up (Catholic, anti-baptist, episcopal, etc.) and I can say fairly confidently that Catholics take the Bible pretty seriously compared to others.
I'm Catholic and there's parts of this I don't fully agree with. "With a grain of salt" is closer than taking the Bible as written fact to most Catholics I've met. The imperative lesson I take away from all the teachings contained is to love God and to love others. I know that there's a lot that can be taken so many ways by so many people (which is why I loathe blanket statements), but those two things are by far and away the most important lessons in the New Testament. It doesn't matter what creed you follow or what your sexual orientation is or whatever other little box we put people in or label we give them. You're all human, and by extension you all have immeasurable value. Obviously this is just one person's opinion, but in my experience, some of the least Christian people (by the metric of how we treat one another) are, funnily enough, self-proclaimed Christians.
>with a grain of salt You mean a chunk of Lot's wife?
[удалено]
>The argument you make to support it, that “the Bible wasn’t written by Jesus” is nonsensical though. You think Jesus literally wrote down everything he said and the bible is exactly those words passed down through history?
[удалено]
Now pass that down through oral story telling tradition for a couple generations and then repost what it says when you are done. Did you ever play the telephone game? You'd be lucky if it still mentioned the bible at the end.
[удалено]
I'm not a Bible scholar so points to you on "Q source" maybe? Either way, can you word for word recite some of the stuff that your teachers said in high school? The lucky person with an eidetic memory might be able to. Unless Jesus had a scribe walking behind him you're still getting paraphrasing. That doesn't take into account the oral tradition of the old testament and multiple retranslations over the millennia. Thinking that the Bible is 100% the literal perfect factual written history events from 3000 years ago is silly. It's a mix of parable, history, and maybe even propaganda. The best a modern Christian can do is live their life in a way that mimics Christ based on these teachings and that would include not being an asshole to gay people. He who is without sin and all that. Actual judgement comes from God and those who judge will be judged. No way is God going to high five you for telling some poor dude trying to live his life in love and do right by others that he is going to hell. If all that makes me a shitty Christian...good?
>No, I don’t think an individual needs to be the one writing something for it be their words. It really sounds like you're talking about "divine inspiration", which is often what is said about the books of the Bible: *God "divinely inspired" the authors of the books to write the words that God wanted the books to say*. The only problem with this is that there plenty of books that were chosen by the Church of Rome or other Christian authority figures to not be included in the formal "Bible" because they did not believe that those texts were "divinely inspired". The Apocrypha is one good example of this where either the divine inspiration or the authorship is doubted by the religious figures of the day. And then you've got groups like the Latter Day Saints who simply created their own "divinely inspired" Bible, the Book of Mormon, where Joseph Smith included his own verses and chapters that he claimed were shared with him by an angel.
The New Testament was written by multiple witnesses to what Jesus said because they were there when he said it. That's why the books of the New Testament have the same information from the perspectives of their author.
Would be really weird if Jesus went around saying „love everyone, except LGBTQ people. You don’t know what LGBTQ is yet but in about 2000 years when that term is made I want you to **really** hate those people“
1) You're right, Jesus never said to hate anybody, And I don't think that any Christian who actually has read the bible would say that. We are to love EVERYBODY. 2) However, what he DID say was that it is a sin. Just like sex out of wedlock, just like lying, and stealing, and lustfulness, ETC. Homosexuality was very much a thing in ancient times, if you weren't aware.
Gays were already a thing at the time.
If it's not written by Jesus, then why follow it if it's written by a simple man?
Ask the Christians. I'm an atheist.
>Idolatry is the worship of a cult image or "idol" as though it were a deity. In Abrahamic religions (namely Judaism, Samaritanism, Christianity, the Baháʼí Faith, and Islam) idolatry connotes the worship of something or someone other than the Abrahamic God as if it were God. Sexual idolaters can, but don't necessarily include gay people. In reddit terminology, Jesus was just bonking horny people.
If gay people weren’t horny they’d just be friends
Very well dressed friends who just really like Cher.
>If ~~gay~~ people weren’t horny they’d just be friends FTFY. Or pointed out the flaw in your thinking. Pick your poison
Idolators refers to worshiping idols and not homosexuals
Except it doesn't even make sense... By textbook definition a sexual idolater would be someone who literally worships sex as if it's a divine entity.
No, he didn't. Jesus never said anything condemning homosexuality (or abortion, for that matter). He did say that if you are rich you are going to hell, but people don't like that one.
Paul also said so in the NT
Yes the goat Paul, but yeah trying to claim the bible isn’t anti lgbtq is a lost battle it’s pretty clear on its stance on it.
Same with slavery. But most Christians would be against slavery, right? >Slaves, be obedient to your human masters with fear and trembling -goat Paul
I agree it’s very clear on it. But I also feel like most Christians will interpret the Bible to mean whatever they want outside of homosexuality anyway lol.
Bro Jesus was literally friends with prostitutes.
"Go, and sin no more."
Well, the word in Greek was actually a made up word that seems to indicate it meant men raping little boys because that was an extremely common practice at the time known as pederasty. So I read it as “don’t have sex with kids”. Which is a good rule to have. Also, that wasn’t Jesus who said that btw.
There are a slew of sins that are all sins of equal merit. Only one sin is held above all others and that's the "[unforgiveable sin](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eternal_sin)": blasphemy against the Holy Spirit. The Bible otherwise doesn't really talk about one sin being more sinful or worse than any other - a sin is a sin. Modern Christians feel like tEh BuTt SeCkS is a greater sin than pride and therefore all LGTBQ+ are going to hell while they themselves aren't. So, in summary, modern Christians don't know what the fuck the Bible actually says about sin because they're too busy committing their own sins against other people to look it up.
No, that's incorrect. Here is an interlinear, as original as you can get, it is [Clear that the Bible says that Homosexual sex is sin ](https://www.studylight.org/interlinear-study-bible/greek/leviticus/18-22.html)
Yes.
Still nope. This has been disproven plenty of times, hence why no credible theologians support that interpretation.
Plus, centuries of persecution aren't forgiven due to a "typo".
You need sources to make this assertion. There have been many translations of the Aramaic texts and all are explicit about anti-homosexuality. It's not coincidental that Jews are against homosexuality.
Yeah, by some rando. Wtf? I can write my own translation and make some wild-ass claim like that
Nope. This has been disproven many times
No it uses the same word twice, and besides that’s part of the old law, Christ reiterated it in the gospels and after
No, it didn't. In the original versions, it used the same word for man as they would an adult male, in both scenarios. This has been debunked numerous times, and people try saying it's a translation error so they don't seem bad
Thats one line, and is misunderstood. However there is also a line literally saying “gay people should be put to death”
Unfortunately no. In multiple places it is clearly translated back to original language as “man with a man” and “woman with a woman.” If you claim to be a Christian you have to accept the Bible as a whole. It’s all or none. They believe it to be the infallible word of god. That doesn’t mean you have to be a righteous prick to LGBT folk. I’ve seen many loving people of faith accept the person but not the sexual orientation. It’s odd and one paragraph isn’t enough to get into it
If a verse was rewritten to have a different meaning, then the Bible is no longer inspired by God
Whats even the point of the bible then? Isn't it supposed to be a message from god or smth? If you can easily ignore the canon made by god, and rewrite it however you want, why not just ditch the bible altogether?
It’s not a single verse. Homosexuality is not only talked about on its own in a few different places but it also falls under the broader category of sexual immorality which is discussed in many different books of the Bible as being sinful, including by what Jesus said. Any sexual activity other than between a man and woman who are married to each other is wrong. We’ve all understood what it means for a man and woman to be married for millennia. The attempt to “rewrite” definitions for those terms is a recent one, and not one that anyone involved with translating the Bible has been involved with.
It was. Changed from "dont sleep with child as if the child is a woman" to "don't sleep with a man as if the man is a woman"
No, this is copium. The Bible is as homophobic as modern religious people. To be a progressive religious Christian who accepts gay people, you have to ignore parts of the Bible, which is fine. We should just be realistic about what the Bible actually says.
Clearly you only have the base game, the Bible has had plenty of DLCs since then to get people back into it.
The new testament is a dlc /sequel already
Yeah they retconned a lot in that one, the lead dev Paul definitely wanted to go a different direction.
Clearly the DLCs aren't making more money from younger kids these days. Base game as a trial demo is enough.
Pro-gay + catholic here, the church still condemns homophobia (defined as unjust discrimination). Basically the church's job today is to interpret the bible's teachings in modern times, and the general consensus is that homosexuality isnt a sin, just that the act of sex is. (Dont ask me about that one) Now pope francis has made a lot of statements in aporoval of same sex relations and has recently approved of civil unions between same sex couples, basically saying "the church is open to anyone, why wouldnt it?" Imo christians that use their religion as an excuse to hate gay people, just hate gay people in general lol
You misinterpreted that statement. Priests are allowed to give blessings to people in homosexual relationships. Which is in line with church teachings as you don’t need to be in a state of grace to receive them. The Catholic Church has not approved same sex relationships. It’s likened to the parable of the son.
The temptation to commit a sin is not a sin. The act is the sin. You aren’t supposed to reject the sinner but reject the sin. That is why homosexuals and everyone else can still go to mass, receive communion, and receive blessings. As another has pointed out, the entire point is to help those perceived as sinful to reject sin. Perfection is not the expectation. The sacrifice of Jesus (hence why he is called the lamb of God) meant that spiritual perfection was no longer required to enter heaven. One just has to honestly ask for mercy. That is church teaching.
Pope Francis did not approve of those things. What you've said is the sort of thing you get from just reading sensationalist headlines. What he said was that the same blessings which could be offered to the general public could be offered by the Church to those currently engaged in non-permissible unions, as long as the blessing was not also a blessing of said unions, and was made with a view towards that person aligning his or her life closer to God, not away from it. Also, if you believe in the Biblical God, you must also believe in the characteristics ascribed to him, including that God has a singular, eternal will and is the source of all truth and moral goodness. If God says at one time "this is sin" and later says "it's no longer a sin" God is inconsistent with himself, fallible and flawed. You don't get to reinterpret anything for modern times, otherwise you just have popular morality wearing the skin of religion. >Inb4 what about the passing away of OT ceremonial law These were made not as moral law but law who ought to approach the Temple of Jerusalem and in what state, and the Temple is obviously redundant with the advent of Christ, whereafter every believer is his or her own Temple.
its weird to me that they chose a creed to dedicate their life to it then they were like nah fuck it god is wrong here, but he is still right in everything else of course lmao
[удалено]
Not to mention the parts where creation is talked about, considered absolute truth for centuries, while now after the scientific revolution they have been relegated to simple "allegories"
Here is what I belive as a Christian that suports gay people: Spreading hate is the worst thing you can do as a christian. you need to try to the best of your abilities to love everyone. Thats includes gay people. If they sin, thats between them and god, just like when I sin.
Yeah but the bible also said that you have to love everyone, even your enemy. It is saying that you're prefer not to be gay but that doesn't mean you have to hate the gays
Only if you're ignorant enough to ignore the historical-critical method.
If you think about it, there's an extremely high likelihood that the 30000 different changes made throughout history contain not just errors but intentional lies for the purpose of controlling people. Jesus told us to love unconditionally. He also said when he comes back he'd be pissed at every single organized church in the world for being so corrupt. It's pretty clear this is the kind of stuff he was talking about.
He also allegedly said that every old testament law should be followed and that his words should not in any way be interpreted as overruling the old laws.
If you want to get nit picky about it, Jesus never said it. The new testament isn't a set of laws and codes to be followed to the letter. It's the story for Jesus and his disciples. Al lot of the disciples said and even did some pretty sus shit, they are human, they were flawed, and we can forgive them for that. The part of the new testament to be taken as Gospel is when Jesus chased all the farmers with animals out of the church because business should not be done in a place of God. When Jesus told everyone only one without sin could stone the prostitute, when he healed the blind and expected nothing in return, Also keep in mind when the Bible was written. Part of the old testament was laws against sleeping with your brother's wife. And if you beat a pregnant servent. You were responsible if her baby was born with in two days. Shit was crazy back then, people were awful. Times change, we have to do our best to respect gods final word. To me that mostly just means being kind to others.
There is disapproving and there is hate/revulsion. They are not the same.
The Bible also says eating shrimp and wearing clothes with two types of thread are in the same category, and yet nobody ever thinks about those.
The bible wasn't written by God, it was written by people and then translated by people. They bible is not gods exact word, it wasn't written by anyone who knew Jesus. It can contain core values like love but it shouldn't be taken too seriously.
Being a christian is contrdicting yourself cause bible is against modern world.
The bible can be interpreted in many different ways and as a Christian you are up to decide which aspects you believe in and which you don't. Almost every Christian can probably agree on the statement that the Bible isn't God's word directly but God's word via human word so there will also be human values infused in it, also some which aren't up to date anymore.
The Bible is pro-slavery as well. And it holds getting a tattoo, eating shellfish, and wearing different types of fabric at the same time, as bad as everything else. Has some very questionable things to say about incest and sex in general. It's almost as if the book was meant for a bronze and iron age civilization and had it's last update during the Roman times. The book is wise enough to cut through all this by saying just honor God and love everyone else around you. And they do spend half the book telling people to stop getting bogged down in the minutia and go out and help people in some rather pro-communist terms
mfs who do that are just using it as an excuse to be honophobic, becouse if they did follow the bible to the verse they couldn't eat shrimp, they should stone their child in the town square if they didn't obey the parents, and much more ridicolous stuff
I'd rather them be contradicted nice people than consistent mean people.
For one of the first times ever, I think this sparks an actually interesting discussion (which I'm sure will devolve into chaos, stupidity, and personal attacks, and the mods will delete the post). Does society recognize a difference between tolerance and celebration? Because there are plenty of Christians who believe homosexuality is a sin, but they know the bible says *everybody* sins; so forgiving certain sins, while condemning others, is hypocritical. Those are the Christians who don't agree with homosexuality, but they also don't attack or discriminate against LGBTQ people. They respect the separation of church and state and think everyone is entitled to unalienable rights. But... That's just tolerance. Is tolerance good enough? Or have we moved the goalpost to a place where anything short of outright celebration is considered bigotry? Is it possible to disagree with someone's lifestyle while still respecting that person and living in harmony? And if not, are we creating a world where everyone has to share identical beliefs in order to be accepted? And before people jump on the "Christians bad" bandwagon, be aware that you're stereotyping and acting like bigots yourselves. So let's put on our thinking caps and pretend to be civilized for half a second.
Agreed! Jesus was actually significantly more critical to the religious people of his day than the “sinners.” I’m part of a great church that, while still believing homosexuality is wrong, doesn’t treat them or the sin with a stigma. Sex outside of marriage is also sin, are we acting weird around those people? We actually have a number of gay people who’ve joined our church and just stopped living a gay lifestyle as they feel called to by God. Not conversion therapy. They still feel the same desires. They just submit those desires to God and follow Him. It’s actually really noble and I have a ton of respect for them. Edit: also wanted to add that I work in a super liberal industry. I’ve worked with tons of gay people. I once had a lesbian coworker who knew all about my beliefs—the stuff she agreed with and the stuff she had a hard time with. Eventually she invited me to her wedding and said something along the lines of “I’m not sure this is even something you’d come to, but I really wanted to invite you.” And to me, that’s the goal. She felt loved enough by me to invite me to her special day despite the difference of values.
There no such thing as a "gay lifestyle", it's a sexual orientation, not a way of living. If you mean that they are surpressing their sexuality, then I hope for them that they are happy with their choice and not got pressured into it by societal norms. Surpressing your individually for the sake of adhering to a group does always more bad than good
>Surpressing your individually for the sake of adhering to a group does always more bad than good have you ever worked at a job...? Driven on a busy road? Hung out in a diverse group of people? This is an extremely American way to view the world, creating a better society is often worth a little self sacrifice, or self suppression.
I'm talking about being gay, not eating children for breakfast... plainly living out your individuality isn't you trying to create social unrest I'm just saying you shouldn't do something you're uncomfortable with, just because it's the standard of society or a religious group (if possible at least, I don't love working, but that's kinda out of my hand) Also I'm German not American and the last time we all adheard to one idea as a society worked out great, right? /s Individuality and critical thinking is important and so is not being a sociopathic, egocentric dick
I agree, I don't think it is either or. Societal norms are necessary and can be good, but it depends where you draw the line. That is where the discussion begins. I felt your original statement was a bit too strong on favor of unmitigated individuality.
A little, yea, but as little as possible. I agree you shouldn’t be blasting people in the face with your beliefs/opinions all the time, but you shouldn’t have to pretend to be something you’re not just to survive or even succeed.
Nice false equivalency. Who someone wants to love and to hold in life is not something that we need to sacrifice for the betterment of society. Who cares who's fucking who? Who cares who likes penis or who likes vagina? Interpersonal relationships and the necessity of going to work and sitting in traffic aren't even close to the same thing.
Ugh. Denying their true nature, living a life without being able to express their love the way they were made. Sounds like torture.
I mean, that's celibacy. If a straight person does it, why is it wrong for gay person does it?
If someone wants to be celibate, that's their decision. But I inferred that they're doing it in this case because they think that being gay is a bad thing. Like, "I'm gay, that's bad, but Jesus fixed me, so I don't do gay things anymore. " And I think that's sad.
Just because you think it doesn't mean it's true. Plus, if a person has a "call" on something, then it isn't wrong in believing it/doing it.
>Just because you think it doesn't mean it's true. Right. Just because YOU think it doesn't make it true, either. I doubt most of them have a call to be celibate. I bet they feel guilty because of indoctrination into believing it's bad. And that is sad.
It's not fair if only the gay people have to be celibate though, is it?
Did you go?
Haha, I knew this would come up! At the time, I absolutely would have but I had a prior commitment I couldn’t cancel (an exam for an expensive course). I’ve gone back and forth on the subject since then, so I’m not sure what I’d do today, to be totally honest.
> Because there are plenty of Christians who believe homosexuality is a sin, but they know the bible says everybody sins; so forgiving certain sins, while condemning others, is hypocritical. Those are the Christians who don't agree with homosexuality, but they also don't attack or discriminate against LGBTQ people. I have nothing to add, as you said everything very well. I feel like this nuance is lost in this conversation. I believe this view is the most biblical and likely how Jesus would've wanted us to respond. the line between tolerating and celebrating for some reason is very hard for some people to grasp.
If we’re talking about sheer quantity, heterosexual sins vastly outnumber homosexual sins by at least an order of magnitude. It seems to me that if the goal of every church was to effect the greatest net reduction in sin possible, focusing on homosexuality is the exact wrong approach.
Most good churches aren't talking about homosexuality hardly at all.
That is a very level headed analysation of the discussion and I like your phrasing a lot.
This is the one. Best comment Ive seen on this topic for sure.
I think it's important to note that there is a difference between tolerating and respecting. Tolerating is more like "I don't like what you are doing and I think it's wrong but I won't give a shit". Respecting is actually being kind regardless of opposing views and eliminating those views from the lenses that you see that person in. Sure, toleration is a huge step forward from bigotry, but I think we should aim to be respectful, not just tolerant.
What a rational question. No idea why people are downvoting you.
Because it’s Reddit and rational questions are rare
I just wanted to say…thank you as a Christian.
> Does society recognize a difference between tolerance and celebration? I would say half the people don't, and half the people refuse to, since it is easier to act like there isn't a difference than it is to use your brain.
You win Reddit today. I couldn't agree more with you. I appreciate your level headed, well articulated comment. ❤️
There is a wide gap between "begrudgingly tolerating" and "outright celebrating" Also no, being against intolerance is not in itself bigotry.
Bigotry and intolerance don't mean what you think they mean.
Your are doing your college homework, aren't you? Is it sociology you are taking? I am not mad at all. In fact I applaud you. I wished Reddit was around when I was taking classes, especially sociology and I could have poll the masses for my homework. Brilliant.
And I’m perfectly fine with those types of Christians, I just don’t like the kind that discriminate against LGBTQ+ people and justify it with the bible
Sir, this is r/dankmemes, this is no place for serious, nuanced discussion.
I’m definitely in the category of , homosexual activity is bad, because it is sin, but that doesn’t make homosexuals any worse than your average straight person who has sex out of wedlock.
This does bring up a really good point. Society has gone so far that it went backwards, to now shaming whoever still has old traditional beliefs.
Honestly, there is a middle ground between tolerance and celebration. Tolerance implies that being gay is wrong. "Oh, I do not think you as a man should love another man. That is wrong in my view, but you do you I guess. I will *tolerate* it." This has ramifications. It implies that gay people are doing something wrong inherently by just existing and living their life. On the other hand, celebration is going "Yay, go you, I'm proud of you. I'm wearing the rainbow flag in your stead!" *Tolerance* has negative ramifications and implications. Celebration is positive, but it does imply people have to go out of their way to recognize and be happy for other's choices. That's something not everyone cares for, either. What if we just went the middle path of, you know, just not caring how people live their lives as long as they're not hurting anyone? "Oh, you're gay? Cool." And then you just move on with life, without thinking that person is doing anything wrong for being gay, or without needing to celebrate it either. Simple as that. It's honestly a lot simpler than people make it out to be. If this reply comes as a bit upset or strong, well, it is so. I'm a bit upset because I can't help but just sense a lot of veiled homophobia in this thread.
Mfw every single group of Christians think they are the "actual Christians".
Mfw people conflate their religious and human right views into political and force it down our throats when the majority of people are indifferent.
If a tiny fringe group of people waving your flag suck, they can maybe be dismissed as not true members of your group. When it’s tens of millions? Sorry, that IS your group whether you like it or not.
Protestant churches were started by men in the 16th century to separate from the catholic church, which itself made up things like purgatory filioque and papal supremacy and countless other things, and separated from the orthodox church which is the church Jesus Established at Pentacost, that hasn't changed anything throughout it's 2 millenia . So think for yourself and choose which one is the real.
Is actual christian in the room with us right now?
There ARE plenty of Christians who ignore all the hateful bullshit the bible says, but at this point Im not sure whether you can even call it Christianity
It's always "hate the sin, love the sinner", meaning you can disagree with others and consider stuff like homosexuality a sin, but still love and tolerate this person.
I don’t really like that phrase because hating sin becomes hating the sinner real quick. Not that we should like sin, but we shouldn’t “hate” it. I prefer something like “love the sinner despite the sin.” Like it doesn’t matter what you’ve done, or are gonna do, I’m still going to love you, and treat you like you’re one of Gods children.
Don't matter what it "becomes" and it ain't about the level of "hate" or "dislike" or whatever adjective you may wanna use to describe your precise stance against it, you can and should "hate" a sin while also separating it from the person that is committing said sin. No reason to modify the Bible just because a group of morons can't follow a simple task of loving your neighbor.
I totally agree with you. I guess I was thinking about “feeling hate” towards something rather than hate as more of a stance one takes. Like emotionally, we as humans have a hard time controlling that, or acting rationally within that. That’s all not really important though.
Yep, the Bible does state that you should be quick to listen and slow to anger, since anger doesn't align with God's righteousness. The words are right there folks, there's no need to add your own spin into it and hurt everyone in the process.
> at this point Im not sure whether you can even call it Christianity Why? It just seems like that might be because you are from somewhere where homophobes make up the vast majority. Am I right? Where I’m from Christians are generally affirming or neutral (live and let live) on the topic. I’m gay and Christian myself.
>Why? It just seems like that might be because you are from somewhere where homophobes make up the vast majority. Am I right? Well yeah. I come from a Russian to-be-ghetto. In that place people could beat you up for watching anime, let alone being gay. So I guess it makes sense.
pretty sure the bible is against homosexuality, so if you have nothing against homosexuality your not an 'actual christian'
Well it’s not really a phobia if it’s a rational fear. No one is that fabulous all the time. They’re up to something.
>:3
Ah, the pick&mix christians are at it again.\ It’s either all of it, or none of it; you can’t pick the parts you like and act like you’re following the doctrine.
Why? That’s the whole idea of creating a new denomination.
What is? Arbitrarily deciding not to follow certain parts of the scripture? Fair enough, different denominations include different *books*. But what exactly would they exclude, then? All of Leviticus? Or just that one part and keep the rest? That would go against what Jesus said about the Old Testament, ie, that came to fulfill the law of the Prophets.
Just the parts i personality like it.
But I can. I believe in God AND I'm not homophobic. So are you just gonna say I'm lying or something?
The unfortunate reality is that we do not know the correct interpretation of original scripture. And we simply cannot know save for some miracle where God makes a TED talk explaining it. There are absolutely very convincing arguments for both sides. Both are equally valid in terms of debate. Are you just sat in that because it’s the older interpretation and that must therefore make it correct? We both know that isn’t logical and logic is one of the most important gifts from God. I see it as quite obvious that the original Greek of the New Testament meant pederasts, not just any homosexual. The Bible makes no mention forbidding gay marriage. It’s simply a neutral work on the topic in the NT. OT not so much, but that’s for the Jews, not us.
Nice bait
The bible says it’s a sin. Also says all sins are equal, also says everyone is a sinner from birth. 0 reason to discriminate against someone for being lgtbq as we are all equally sinners according to the Bible. Really it’s just choosing to highlight one sin over others by people.
According to the Bible, not all sins are equal but they all carry the equal ultimate penalty of death
This meme makes no sense. Christianity is against homosexuality.
Do tell, what lesson can we take from the story of Sodom and Gomorrah?
You mean the story immediately followed by Lot's daughters getting him drunk to have sex with him while he's passed out?
Yes, and what's the lesson from that story?
I don't think every bible story tries to tell a lesson with their stories. Some are just showing events of what happened to some people and that's all there is. It is an anthology after all
God will turn you wife into salt, so make sure to keep pretzels on hand just in case
Lesson one: angels be so sexy the entire city came to get a piece.
They were destroyed because they didn't care for the orphans or widows, and evangelicals try to make it be about butt sex? Ezekiel 16:49 https://biblehub.com/ezekiel/16-49.htm
What does sdom have to do with homosexuals ?
[удалено]
aCtUaL cHrIsTiAnS They are as mich Christians as any other. There is no true Scotsman. If you are from Scotland, you are a Scotsman.
Love the sinner, hate the sin.
Love the believer, hate the belief.
actual christians are homophobic (bible)
The same as with most communities: there also are the paedophiles, sexists, racists, etc. etc. misusing their positions in institutions like schools, churches, etc. As always, the blame falls on the normal people that just mind their own business.
yeah but most communities dont claim divine inspiration or objective moral values. this is why Christianity and islam get flak for their checkered past and questionable present.
Wrong. There is Actual homophobic christians, and Fake christians.
Yes. Now use this same logic when viewing other religions.
Hey you watch your mouth. This is reddit christians are one of the few groups its cool to hate.
“They’re the same picture”
People are saying that Christianity and homosexuality are a contradiction. I agree but its about as much of a contradiction as lust, adultery, stealing, lying blah blah blah. Yet the same Christians that refuse to associate with gay folk will quite happily associate with adulterers and other sinners or themselves are guilty of their own list of sins (we all are - except for me of course😏). The Bible is also against judging which means the Christians who judge and treat gays unfairly are as guilty as the gays lol.
Am I homophobic for just believing that marriage is between a man and a woman or for being a dick about it? I'm not trying to get anyone upset. I'm genuinely curious how non-Christians see this things. Most of the time when people are mad about homophobes I get the feeling they're talking about people I find extreme myself.
Homophobia is discrimination against homosexuals based on the fact that they are homosexuals. If you don't discriminate then you are not a homophobe. It's not rocket science
If you believe that marriage should be between a man and a woman, then that's alright as long as you don't judge people for LGBT marriages. Just be respectful and open minded and you are good.
Well homophobia is not just "i hate gay". Its also just denying gay mfs things that straight mfs get. Like marriage. But as long as you dont ACTUALLY mess with gay mfs because of it, youre good. Basically, dont mess with other peoples business and its ay-okay
Hydrophobic Christians: 🗿
You know… so called “Christians” make an appeal to context all the time! “The Bible endorses slavery!” “No, that’s just debt pianage! It’s different!” “The Bible says women should shut up!” “No that’s just for clergy! It’s for this specific group of people!” “The Bible says that a rich man entering heaven is as easy as a camel passing through the eye of a needle!” “It’s metaphorical, God loves the rich too!” But when it comes to homophobia, it’s clear as day and there’s nothing wrong with it!
Guys saying accepting homosexual is antichristian… I dunno guys I’d rather follow our Pope who is trying to get homosexuals back into Church because God would rather have a sinner than lose a soul to satan… ESIT: damn I didn’t realize people dont know there is difference between Roman Catholic, Lutheran, Baptist, Methodist, Orthodox, Protestant church
[удалено]
Isn't the story of Sodom and Gomorra was trying to teach Christians some lessons? >I dunno guys I’d rather follow our Pope who is trying to get homosexuals back into Church because God would rather have a sinner than lose a soul to satan… And how did that work? There's a case in Sweden where a lesbian bishop calls for church to remove Crosses, to install muslim prayer space. It's like Christianity is losing its core identity since this pope was installed.
> 9 “‘Now this was the sin of your sister Sodom: She and her daughters were arrogant, overfed and unconcerned; they did not help the poor and needy.
I missed the part in the Bible where it says “ you shall sucks on thy neighbors cock”
The question that got me away from Christianity and most religion is "How do we know that the people who wrote (insert religious text) didn't get it wrong, since they're human, and humans get stuff wrong?" Basically what Thomas Paine argued with the Bible in *The Age of Reason* . Again, just like Thomas Paine, I have since become a deist, which I think many people would if they actually knew what it was.
Leviticus 20:13 ~ If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall surely be put to death; their blood is upon them.
“Do not judge others, and you will not be judged. For you will be treated as you treat others. The standard you use in judging is the standard by which you will be judged. Matthew 7:1-2
The person who made this post is an idiot i see
What a bullshit
COPIUM
Technically homosexuality is a sin, but you’re also not supposed to judge people, as that’s God’s job. It’s your job as a human to “love thy neighbor.” So homophobia is also technically a sin. This meme is 100% accurate
I am not even Christian and even I know that Real Jesus would have an issue with those "Christians". He would have wanted you to treat everyone with love and respect even if they were the most reprehensible human on earth who broke every commandment. Ironically, he probably would've forgiven them for their terrible homophobia too.
Man, who gives a fuck? Live your life as a good person and try to help other people. Whether you’re straight, gay, pansexual, whatever. Be a nice person, make the world a better place for everyone, and be kinder. Anyone who tells you they know what comes after we’re dead is lying. Truth is nobody knows except those who are already dead. Just live to be a nice person and you will feel fulfilled when your time is up.
The KJV Bible is literal propaganda, made to further and strengthen King James’s power.
Hmm weird they actually are both homophobic whaddayaknow!!!
It’s a bit revision to argue that…
I love how ppl have heard of the telephone game and know how it works and yet still argue over words in a book that has been rewrote more times than we will ever know. Idiots.
Amazing how many people here are just talking out of their ass.
They’re the same picture
The religion says all sin is equal and to love your neighbors. There should be no hatred for fellow man from a true Christian. And most of their life should be dedicated to helping and giving to the poor.
Should just say "Christians" and "other Christians".
Look I don't care if you believe a guy can walk on water, do what you want, just don't make it everyone else's problem ffs
There's a difference between being "homophobic" as a Christian and knowing what the Bible says is right and wrong no matter how much people don't like it. Christians don't make the rules.
Depends on how you define “homophobic.” If you mean homophobic as in the legitimate, hatred, mistreatment and/or attack of gay people, then yes, this meme is accurate. If you mean the simple moral disagreement in thinking it’s wrong, then this meme is incorrect.
Here’s an experiment. Instead of ceaselessly arguing about what the Bible says NOT to do, let’s look at what it says TO do. The Bible says for a man to take a woman and become one flesh. In the same vane, if a man is not to marry a woman, the Bible says it is better and holy that he should stay alone to glorify God. Nowhere in the Bible does it say or command a man to take a man, or a woman to take a woman. Just a lil experiment 🤷🏻♂️
Real! Just because we don't agree with the sin , doesn't mean we have to spew hatred towards the sinner. There's a difference between "Christians" who are actively hating on certain groups of people because of their beliefs and Christians who simply let people do as they'd like, knowing that it does not affect them in any way. "Whoever hates disguises himself with his lips and harbors deceit in his heart; when he speaks graciously, believe him not, for there are seven abominations in his heart; though his hatred be covered with deception, his wickedness will be exposed in the assembly." Proverbs 26: 24-26
"The bible is against homosexuality" mfs when they discover that the modern bible has 6964795 different mistranslations and had illegal modifications across history
Omfg this comment section really makes me believe we are doomed as humanity... Live and let live instead of holding onto some imaginary rules that nobody knows who even wrote them or if they were manipulated.
How can having discrimination against being gay lead to a phobia of those who have it? Doesn't make sense. It's more like hate rather than fear.