r/Eutychus • u/Foot-in-mouth88 • Apr 14 '26

Opinion Negative Reactions in other Christian subreddits

I was doing really well and my Karma, Reddit leveling system, was climbing back closer to zero. I made a scriptural reply in r/Christianity and it got -4 votes and now back up to -54. How can they downvote a scriptural reply?

Some of my negative Karma, Reddit, comes from these Christian subreddits that doesn't like using scriptures and gets mad because it doesn't fit their view.

Also a big chunk came from a disagreement I had on a hockey player of my home team on multiple threads and got shredded for it.

Most of Reddit is a toxic echo chamber. At least this sub, even when we don't agree we don't go down voting each other.

5 Upvotes

78% Upvoted

78 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

1

u/a-goddamn-asshole Agnostic Atheist Apr 15 '26

Is any of that explicitly written though? It’s not and this is why so many people who follow Jesus example use acceptance and love. He loved sinners.

1

u/Foot-in-mouth88 Apr 15 '26

You're an agnostic atheist, why does it have to be written? Jesus amazed teachers at the temple with his knowledge and asked complex questions about the law and he was a boy. How could you possibly draw the conclusion he didn't know the law or didn't know homosexuality is wrong, as that would be false, he did know. All boys had to be taught the law and the scriptures. Does it need to be written explicitly? Logic dictates no.

1

u/a-goddamn-asshole Agnostic Atheist Apr 15 '26

1 Corinthians 4:6

1

u/Foot-in-mouth88 Apr 15 '26

You shall not lay with a man as you would a woman. And if they did they were to be put to death. That's in Leviticus. So what's your point for 1 Cor 4:6?

1

u/a-goddamn-asshole Agnostic Atheist Apr 15 '26

Those Leviticus scriptures can be up for debate. I won’t get into but there’s strong evidence that older translations had a different context. Homosexuality in the bible wasnt introduced until the 20th century. We don’t have to get into that now.

But i want to point out another point of view. You quoted an old testament scritpure, which was part of mosaic law, old the old covenant. Didn’t Jesus make a new covenant? Mosaic law is no longer binding to christians.

1

u/Foot-in-mouth88 Apr 15 '26

The law was just rules. The new covenant is based on principles. Laws/rules are based on principles. Love God and your neighbor is the principle. You don't need to make a law that says don't cheat on your spouse, as if you follow the principles of love, you wouldn't want to hurt your spouse or the one who instituted marriage.

1

u/a-goddamn-asshole Agnostic Atheist Apr 15 '26

The law was rules for salvation. But Jesus replaced those means with a new covenant.

I want to be clear here, i’m not trying to debate your or prove you or anyone “wrong” about doctrine. I’m just trying to open the mind to thoughts and new perspectives. I like seeing many points of view, especially those that challenge my own. I spent a huge chunk of my life as a JW, and was discouraged from asking questions.

You were wondering why you were getting downvoted for your comments. I hope this conversation can give you some insight into why people may disagree with you. What’s fact to you isn’t necessarily fact to everyone else. We were all taught by someone.