New Communities
A place to post new communities all over Lemmy for discovery and promotion.
Rules
The rules for behavior are a straight carry over of Mastodon.World's rules. You can click the link but we've reposted them here in brief, as a guideline. We will continue to use the Mastodon.World rules as the master list. Over all, be nice to each other and remember this isn't a community built around debate. For the rules about formatting your posts, scroll down to number 2.
1. Follow the rules of Mastodon.world, which can be found here.
A. Provide an inclusive and supportive environment. This means if it isn't rulebreaking and we can't be supportive to them then we probably shouldn't engage.
B. No illegal content.
C. Use content warnings where appropriate. This means mark your submissions NSFW if need be.
D. No uncivil behavior. This includes, but is not limited to: Name Calling; Bullying; Trolling; Disruptive Commenting; or Personal Criticisms.
E. No Harrassment. As an example in relation to Transgender people this includes, deadnaming, misgendering, and promotion of conversion therapy. Similarly Misogyny, Misandry, and Racism are also banned here.
2. Include a community or instance title and description in your post title. - A following example of this would be New Communities - A place to post new communities or instances all over Lemmy for discovery and promotion.
3. Follow the formatting. - The formatting as included below is important for people getting universal links across Lemmy as easily as possible.
Formatting
Please include this following format in your post:
[link text](/c/community@instance.com)
This provides a link that should work across instances, but in some cases it won't
You should also include either:
or instance.com/c/community
FAQ:
Q: Why do I get a 404?
A: At least one user in an instance needs to search for a community before it gets fetched. Searching for the community will bring it into the instance and it will fetch a few of the most recent posts without comments. If a user is subscribed to a community, then all of the future posts and interactions are now in-sync.
Q: When I try to create a post, the circle just spins forever. Why is that?
A: This is a current known issue with large communities. Sometimes it does get posted, but just continues spinning, but sometimes it doesn't get posted and continues spinning. If it doesn't actually get posted, the best thing to do is try later. However, only some people seem to be having this problem at the moment.
Image Attribution:
Fahmi, CC BY 4.0 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0, via Wikimedia Commons>>
view the rest of the comments
Likely depends on whether you ask the church or Jesus. We don't really have any reliable information, but if he really was a hippie preacher, telling how god loves all of his creatures, and how you can't hate on each other... He must have been pro Lgbtq+
But that's just my take on it. Most people who call themselves Christians might disagree.
I think that is a stretch. He appointed Paul who clearly wrote against practicing homosexuality. (Romans 1:27, 1 Corinthians 6:9) He was anti divorce (Mark 10:9) and adultery as well, telling a woman caught in it to "go and sin no more" (John 8:11). Not "Live your truth" or "Love who you love". Jesus gave us the Church. Now, would Jesus want us to bully those who practice homosexuality? By no means! We should still as Christians treat them with love. But between them and God, repentance is needed. But that's between them and God. So the likes of Steven Anderson is wrong. (In fact, I don't think Steven Anderson is even saved). And as well, this is a commandment for Christians. We have no business trying to enforce this on non-Christians.
Anyway, Jesus would probably be hated by the left today (and the right, but I don't think that needs explaining). He spoke a lot about judgement and hell and condemnation. If anything, the left and right might unite to crucify Him these days.
People in the past said "My ideology is good and Jesus was good so Jesus must be on my side" such as the Nazis and the slaveowners. It's dangerous logic.
You're mostly right except that "the left" would ABSOLUTELY NOT crucify Jesus... Especially if he was as chill and anti-capitalist as the stories imply.
Uh, that's mainly your opinion. I'm pretty sure both passages you gave remain contested. It's likely about male pederasty or prostitution while sex between men in general might be completely fine. And we know for example what Paul's role was, and that was to do politics, not quote Jesus verbatim. So you have to look at the context. That part in Romans is mainly a summary of Hellenistic Jewish legalism, not anything new, not even really about Jesus. It's the customs of the jewish people.
Corinthans again doesn't condemn homosexuality, but you need to read several paragraphs on ancient greek and history to even understand what the word even means. It's not as easy as "homosexuality" to which it has been wrongfully translated.
I don't see a strong argument why male homosexuality should be wrong. Most other passages also talk about it in the context of violence or abuse. And we can all agree that's wrong. But a loving homosexual relationship is a different thing. And then someone still needs to quote some bible verses to me regarding lesbians, trans-people, ... They're obviously accepted and loved by the Christian community, are they?
Jesus taught us not to accept man-made bullshit like right-wing politics or hate. He's figuratively come to earth to oppose conservatism. He taught us to use our own brains instead and try love and understanding towards other creatures. And have respect before God's creation. Which includes a variety of sexual preference and identity. Especially being the underdog and caring for the weak people is what he did and central to leftist-liberal ideology. And opposed by the right.
And I think if your objective were to be to follow the footsteps of Jesus, you'd have dinner with the adulterers, go visit the prostitutes and embrace them, let them wash and perfume your feet. And have everyone give money to the poor. Not do anything else, especially not shit on them. Because that's what he did.
And he wasn't super fond of the Church either. I mean he went there and yelled at people for what they did to his father's place. Opposed the clerics....
So how does that suddenly translate into nazis, slaveowners etc? That's clearly wrong by his teachings. On the contrary, he came to abolish exactly these kinds of things.
Corinthians uses the word Arsenokoitai. It is also found in 1 Timothy 1:10 and in the Septuagint translation of Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13.
It is a compound word, formed from "arsen" (male) and "koitēs" (bed), so essentially meaning "men who bed with other men". Biblical scholars who translate the Bible and know ancient greek always seem to translate it to be people who practice homosexuality or anal sexual intercourse. Basically every reputable translation of the Bible translates it along those lines, and the Church has held that interpretation universally throughout the majority of it's history with no dispute. People are only starting to try and reinterpret it in the wake of the pride movement- which is Eisegesis, not Exegesis, and completely dishonest.
There is no evidence in the text anywhere that it could be indicating paedastry
Now, as for a loving relationship versus the violence or abuse argument, what Paul writes in Romans basically debunks that theory completely:
Romans 1:26-27 NRSV
Indicates a consensual relationship involving a passion. In no place here is violence indicated. In fact, quite the opposite.
Trying to claim that Jesus fits in any secular political viewpoint (leftism, conservatism) is a very shallow view and completely incorrect.
And I think here, you're absolutely right. Although by "embrace" them, not to necessarily affirm what they're doing, but to show them love in their sinful state. Christ didn't come to save the just (which none of us are) but the unjust.
Namely the Pharisees who were more concerned about the law than the Gospel.
By reinterpreting the Bible in your own way, and letting your worldly passions fit your interpretation (Eisegesis) instead of letting the Bible shape you and your viewpoint (Exegesis)
One thing I learned was simple. If I have a problem with something the Bible says, if it doesn't fit my worldview, then I'm the one with the problem and needs to be fixed. Not the Bible. As a human, I can be wrong, and need to be corrected by scripture. And I should do the best I can to follow what I am commanded to in Scripture.
Essentially, if I disagree with the Bible, then I'm the one who's wrong. Not the Bible.
Yeah well, Greeks and Romans also translates "tsela" to read rib as the rib of a man, rather then "side”, and the Jews lean toward "side,” and also consider yhwh androgyne.
Paul was a human, falliable, like the rest of us, and finally the council of nicea out a bunch of books so they could please their oppressors, in the personage of Constantine.
The word in question here isn't Tsela. It's Arsenokoitai.
The biblical canon was not discussed at the Council of Nicaea. The Council of Nicaea was to address the Arian heresy.
Yeah, I read some 3 page essay on how that word was used. I know "every reputable translation of the Bible translates it along those lines" but that doesn't make it correct to translate it to a different word in and view it from a different perspective / a different context 2000 years later. I think it's ambiguous at best. And skipping the 3 pages and making it about todays homosexuals is an oversimplicifaction and simply wrong.
I'm not that educated on church doctrine, but do we even have access to exegesis? I mean sure technically the scripture is the meaning by definition. But isn't what Paul writes already something like eisegesis? I mean he's a human and he interpreted and spread the teachings for us.
Well, I think pederasty is very wrong. If that part of the Bible fails to recognize or even mention that, I condemn the scripture for that.
Again, that's Paul's summary of Hellenistic legalism. That's the entire context of that part of Romans.
I know. The entire left/right spectrum is completely incorrect. But I gave some examples of what kind of person Jesus was and if he advocated for the people and the weak, or for the strong ones and the establishment. He happens to have quite some overlap there with core leftist ideology.
There is no "although". He clearly left out picking on their "sinful state" the way the other people did. He went there and all he had was love. It's not super straightforward but I'm pretty sure we can skip lecturing them on those kinds of "sins".
Yeah I mean good luck with that. It's full of contradictions, stuff that was written after Jesus. You need to believe the earth is 6000 years old and rectancular with angels in the four corners playing the trumpet on doomsday. (Which should have happened a long time ago, but it didn't.) And you can't even tell whether it's okay to eat Shrimp or a cheeseburger unless you do Eisegesis. Slavery and a lot of things we view as wrong today aren't technically outlawed by the Bible and it really depends on what part of it you refer to when judging. Then we have weird parts especially in the old scripture like you can't go to church if you're missing a testicle or you're asian. And I'm pretty sure all the raining frogs and so on is made up and not meant to be taken literally.
By the appointment of Christ and the power of the Holy Spirit
You aren't in any position to condemn the inspired word of God
The "although" I placed there was because I wanted to make sure that you didn't show Jesus as claiming that sin isn't sin, and I was agreeing to a misunderstanding of what you were saying.
The Bible doesn't say that.
It's not as Eisegesis, it's covenant theology. The Council of Jerusalem in Acts 15 also highlights this, as does Paul in several of his epistles. It's why we don't circumcise men anymore.
Chattel Slavery that existed in 1700-1800s America wasn't happening in that society.
Are you talking about the plagues of Moses? If that's the case, then what do you propose happened?
You are drawing a huge and dangerous brush over here. The Bible is a compilation of 66 divinely inspired books. Some are poetry and some are prophecy, like the imagery in Isaiah, Daniel, Ezekiel, Revelation, etc. It is obvious then that stuff like that is up for interpretation. But then when you get to Paul's epistles which are separate literary works, and he says
1 Timothy 1:9-11 ESV
It isn't figurative that enslavers, liars, murderers are evil (at least I hope not) so why do you grant homosexuality an exception?
1 Corinthians 6:9-11 ESV
This doesn't come off as figurative either.
If the whole Bible can be taken figuratively like you argue, then we can discard Jesus' teaching on forgiveness when someone is a former pornstar, and we can say "oh, you're too far gone to be forgiven" "Oh, he meant everyone else, not you, sweetie"
Using God to justify hate is so last Millenium. Be more honest and say you don't like it, God doesn't need your help to look gross.
Not what I ever advocated for
If it promotes adult men sleeping with underage boys, or is indecisive about it, I'll just refuse that kind of "inspiration". I think it's immoral. God can strike me down for that if he likes, and if he's in a position to do that, still doesn't change my mind about the subject.
Yes, you were talking about something else. People just tend to lose me when talking about God's unconditional love and then following the sentence up with a "but" or "although". I think we agree here. I have reason to believe the New Testament is about unconditional love. And that's reflected at many places in it. Most people add a "but", or "although", an we're immediately in dangerous territory. And the people calling themselves Christians and waving signs with "God hates fags" didn't understand the core of that the New Testament stands for. They're simply wrong. But that's not what you said.
In the old times God was kind of evil. He send plagues, told people to kill each other including all women and children, just the young girls are okay to keep. Nonchalantly drowned pretty much all animals which were pretty much innocent in mankinds wrongdoings. Or he casually dropped them on their heads. It's not like that any more for Christians. That's replaced by Gods unconditional love for his children. And the way of Jesus isn't to blame them and lecture them on how they're wrong all the time. But specifically omit that and show them just(!) the love, and that gets them where they need to be. So that's why I think we should never follow up such sentences with a "but". (And you lost me, which was due to me.)
I propose it's part of the supposed origin story of a tribe. And the hardships they had to endure. I have no reason to believe superstitious things happen and physics can be contradicted. Plague of locusts exist and all kind of other things. But not random frog droppings in the way portrayed there.
Btw that's also the source for the (6000 years) young earth theory, because as part of the origin story, it includes a family tree and you can add the numbers up.
I think my main issue is that I completely fail to understand how I'm supposed to know which is open up to interpretation and what's meant to be taken literally. Am I supposed to use reason and my deductive skills here? But that's kind of interpretation again. So I can't do that. And to my knowledge the Bible doesn't really come with an instruction manual what's true and what's over exaggerated or just a nice (but false) story. Or do I just take what some other human said as word for it?
I tried to explain that before. Because it's not there. The text doesn't use the word homosexuality, but "Arsenokoitai". And the passages regularly add constraining adjectives. Which just isn't the case for adultery. The translation is way more forward for that one. And we have more occurrences in the Bible which make it very clear that that one isn't just meant within a certain context, or comes with exceptions. Also Jesus talks about other important issues himself, but for homosexuality that's all in parts added by other people. So that's why I treat that differently.
I mean we have a bit more of an issue here. I started with "depends on whether you ask the church or Jesus". So I'm not really bothered by what Paul thought or wrote down, or covenant theology tells me. If homosexuality were to be important to Jesus, I'd expect it to show up in the Sermon of the Mount or something, and him clearly addressing that big issue. Or I'd like to read some nice parable on how he went to the gay club. But curiously enough, these passages don't exist.
To which I was never objecting to. I was saying that loving a sinner doesn't necessarily mean you are loving the sin.
God cannot be evil.
What about the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ, or the many miracles He performed?
Yes, I'm wrong here. I think it's a bit of a technicality. He created evil (Isiah 45:7) and no matter if he commits the same thing as evil, per definition that never makes him be evil.
I think it's a metaphor. And not even the most important one (to me). I think the important part is that he died for us. And then they added some more fluff to the story. It really brings it home and sets him apart as the messiah if there's an added resurrection. And well, I think performing miracles was quite common for prophets back then and paranormal things happened often. Muhammad also performed many miracles including similar ones like providing supernatural food. Various other people did supernatural acts. And people split the sea and did all kinds of things in the Old Testament.
I'm still very unconvinced about the entire homosexuality thing. I mean the Romans text is kind of the God of the Old Testament, needy for valudation and full of wrath. And then he was pissed and gave humans sexual desires contrary to nature. And that and the "shameless acts" are a bit unclear. Whatever that is supposed to mean if I'm not allowed to interpret it. I'd say men loving each other in a genuine way surely can't be that, there's no shame or harm in that.
The Corinthian thing is more it. Still needs context though, since it requires knowledge about sex practices back then and what has been considered immoral by society back then, because it mostly refers to that. And then we have the translation in the way.
My big issue, if that's not concerned with pederasty... What part of the New Testament is? Or is age just not the problematic part of it, ...that'd be completely fine to do for Christians..., just the same gender needs clarification?
Hold it - so you don't even believe Jesus rose from the dead? You've basically proved my point then that it's a contradiction.
You don't believe that Jesus rose from the dead (and thus aren't even Christian in that case) If that's the case I think it is safe to assume that you don't believe Jesus is the very God who determines what love and acceptance are, or right and wrong, all you're really doing is stuffing your own definition of those words into some warmed over talking points, then stuffing that inside the hollowed out name of "Jesus" so you can tell me I am wrong about what my God teaches.
Since you have to disregard Christianity to make your logic work, it proves my point that talking points such as these are incompatible with Christianity.
No, I'm not a Christian. I'm sorry, now I think I should have lead with that, or not failed to recognize you were under the assumption I was... I have such an upbringing, I've been part of the church. But I myself don't have the belief in me, that what's in the Bible are factual truths. Still, that doesn't stop me from being interested in Jesus, his life and teachings. And to some degree the scripture itself.
And thanks for the good conversation and your perspective. I learned a lot of things. And I looked some up. My intention was basically that, not proclaim you were wrong. That'd be very hypocritical if I were to try to prove you wrong on the basis of scripture, which I don't even have as the basis for my own morals. I still think these things matter, though. And I follow how the catholic (and protestant) church around me has started blessing same sex couples, they have campaigns now for plurality and welcome such people amongst themselves. And the attached youth organizations sometimes take part in rainbow events like pride month. At least where I live. And from what I get from our conversation, we're likely on the same page here, when I say I welcome that and I think it's a "good" advancement the church made. (It wasn't always like this.)
I think with "the act" itself, we can't settle our differences. I think the entire limitation of sex to procreation isn't right, and I don't base that on scripture. You gave me quite some insight about your perspective, and I still struggle with the translation and the context it is in and its interpretation, but I think I have at least some understanding now.
I'm glad we had the discussion. Although I don't really see why Christians should be expected to alter their beliefs to suit that of non-Christians (in the same way I have no interest in convincing atheists that homosexuality is morally wrong). I think I have said that homophobia - in terms of actually attacking and/or trying to worsen the quality of life or remove rights from homosexual people is completely wrong.
1 Corinthians 5:12-13
I think the main issue is that the Bible isn't concise enough for a supposed divine book. It rarely tells me useful things and what to do in my modern life in the big city. Instead it has a lot of passages about camels, living in the bronze age and so on. And I think that's because of what it is. Written by humans, a long time ago, shaped by their perspective. If God had wanted it to contain absolute truth, he shouldn't just have appointed them to write it, but handed out some absolute truth.
And I can see how we can interpret all kinds of things into it. We definitely have the "Christians" who focus on hate. Who run around with these "God hates fags" signs and they find all kinda of things to make other people's life miserable. We have several variants of Christianity and they disagree on many details. We had things from the Spanish Inquisition to today's more liberal times. All based on pretty much the same text. And why is that? Are 99% of people throughout history, and the other variants of current Christians all just wrong and on the wrong path and I'm the only one understanding it correctly? Or who is? Because I really need to know if I'm expected to follow it.
I think it's because Christians do in fact base their morals not just on straightforward literal bible verses. That's why they genuinely and wholeheartedly held different beliefs in the middle ages. That's why they're able to adopt to societal progress. We don't just make women's life miserable any more. They got the right to vote and they're supposed to have equal opportunities now. We even allow them to become teachers. And that's pretty much in direct violation of the bible. Yet I have some friends who are teachers, some even for religion. And the protestant church here even has a male and a female priest and she doesn't view her role as to stay quiet and bear childs. The catholic church which I've grown up in thinks that's not how it's done and they don't appoint females. (Plus she has some formal education on scripture and the inner workings of the Church, so I trust she knows more about it than I do.)
Point being: Women's rights are not an achievement of the church. They didn't sit down, have a covenant or concile and then changed the world to be more open towards women... It's the other way around. Society made progress, and it was a long hard fight. And people adopted.
I think it's basically the same thing with the stands towards LGBTQ+ people.
And we have a few other issues in the catholic church, like Maria 2.0. And the vatican's long held ideas towards contraceptives which are highly problematic because it contributes to spreading HIV.
I have little issues with you and your personal belief system. The issue is that we're all part of the same world and it has quite some impact. And the church still has a big influence. They employ some of my friends, they run entire hospitals and more, several big charities... They shape society. And I'm everything but indifferent towards that. And I don't view myself as an outsider, because I'm living amongst Christians, Muslims, Atheists, Agnostics and all sorts of people. We're really one because we share the place we live in. And it matters what we do, both individually and collectively.
I have a problem with people who say scripture has to be taken literally. None of the people I talked with, even with ranks in the Church or a formal education in scripture, has ever told me that, and that's all there is to it. I know such people exist, though. It's not the way I learned it. They gave me the text, but also added context, historical context and told me how we're fitted with a brain with the capability to reason, to understand meaning, and I need to use it. And that got me to where I am.
Luckily the community around me mostly shares what I recognize in your comments as well. How "The gospel" means "good news" and that's the central point of how you're supposed to practice it.
Edit: And to add some conclusion: I sincerely think all the laws governing sexuality, like outlawing anal sex, or teaching how the death sentence is appropriate for coitus interruptus (contraception) are the way of the Old Testament. It's in the spirit that humans are meant to suffer for sins, not enjoy life. And that has been replaced by the "good news" part and the new covenant.
I mean what do you think? Do you think intimacy being enjoyable is God's crude way to punish us, or is there more to it after Jesus? Do I deep-clean the couch and break all the pottery and not sit down in my own home for half a month each month or do you think the invention of the washing machine and sanitary products changed how we deal with female biology? And what's with the female priest in the protestant church here? I've listened to her speak in the church and she views that as her job. I don't even have to revert to the Old Testament to judge. Paul has a very clear stance on that. What's correct in your eyes? Because I think this is very similar to what we're talking about. And answers to these questions could help me understand how archaic cleanliness rules apply to modern times, and how more liberal approaches in society translate to scripture.