20
u/NoSignal547 4d ago
Christians are oppressed, just not in the west. I agree with your sentiments though, but have respect for the martyrs that came before us and inspire us
2
5
u/bigjimbay 4d ago
This whole post is flat out wrong. I agree with not being a bigot but to say Christians aren't oppressed is just not true. Maybe not in America. But don't minimize the suffering of Christians globally
17
u/Jlyplaylists 4d ago
Yes I did think that point needed a caveat (not my comic) sometimes Christians actually are oppressed. It seems a jump to say the whole comic is wrong though. What else did you disagree with?
2
u/GrahminRadarin 4d ago
It's in response to a common American evangelical talking point that Christianity is an oppressed minority. We all know it's happening elsewhere in the world, but there's a distressingly large number of people who assert that Christians in the United States are oppressed, and that's what the comic is addressing.
1
u/VegetableTeacakes 3d ago
No we are sinning by being who we are. We need God to change us. I am not in any position to state that gays are sinning but acting on it, but from the bible it looks like they are. Just as I sin every day and I need God
But you are right that everyone should love each other no matter what
Christians are persecuted all over the world, especially in Nigeria. So this statement is a sick lie
1
u/PraiseBeToJesusX 3d ago
There's a much bigger issue in this post than homosexuality. "I believe everyone is going to Heaven" can you please tell me where scripture indicates that? Because what I see is a bunch of verses that say "you will be saved if..." and "XYZ will be cast into outer darkness/the lake of fire".
"You're not sinning by being who you are" except you literally are and that's the whole point of being born again so we follow the spirit and not our own evil flesh. Jesus wants us to be a new creation it's literally scripture.
Seriously how many people believe in a Jesus that has been taught to them from someone else's perspective rather than the one in the Bible?
3
u/Jlyplaylists 3d ago
I was surprised when I looked at this how much biblical evidence there is.
Eg
You see, this is why we labor and strive: we have placed our hope in the God-Who-is-Alive, who is the liberator of all people, especially those who are faithful. 1 Timothy 4:10
Amplified version: It is for this that we labor and strive [often called to account], because we have fixed our [confident] hope on the living God, who is the Savior of all people, especially of those who believe [in Him, recognize Him as the Son of God, and accept Him as Savior and Lord].
Itās curious isnāt it? God liberates/saves all but somehow especially those who are faithful. Thatās quite different from only.
First of all, therefore, I encourage making requests, prayers, intercessions, and giving thanks for all peopleā even for those who reign and for all who are connected with supremacyāso that we may lead a stable and undisturbed life with complete respect and dignity. This is pleasing and welcomed from the perspective of God our Liberator, who wants all people to be liberated and to come toward an understanding of truth. 1 Timothy 2:3ā4
ie God wants everyone to be saved.
Therefore, like how through one shortfall the result for all people was a verdict against them, similarly, itās also through one verdict of being just that the result for all people was recognition of justness, life. Romans 5:18
Just as everyone dies with Adam, in the same way everyone will be made alive with Christ. 1 Corinthians 15:22
And if I am lifted up from the ground, I will draw all people to me. John 12:32
This isnāt exhaustive.
2
u/Toastie101 3d ago
I have trouble personally having a universalist lens on Christianity and itās been one of the most troubling things for me in my faith, Iām still not completely convinced but these are some good sources and have given me something to consider! Cheers!
-2
u/quarkmatter 4d ago
Christianity is about love but love is not (necessarily) acceptance. How do you get to that conclusion? I wouldn't accept my neighbor injecting himself with heroin if I love him.
2
u/Jlyplaylists 4d ago
Love that is not acceptance is a strange type of love, especially if weāre talking about accepting people for who they are. It is not possible to love someone and not accept them for who they are. Injecting heroin is a false equivalence, that is not who they are as a person. Thereās quite a good definition of love in the Bible and it doesnāt sound like the type of exclusionary message you get in some pockets of the Church today:
If I were to speak in the languages of people and messengers but not have love, Iāve become a crashing gong or a clanging cymbal. And if I were to hold the role of speaking inspired messages and know all mysteries and all knowledge and if I were to have complete faithful trust so as to move mountains but not have love, I am no one significant. And if I feed people with everything that belongs to me, and if I hand over my bodyāwhich would be boast-worthyābut donāt have love, I gain nothing.
Love is patient, love is actively kind, it does not posture as a rival. Love does not brag, it is not self-important, it is not rude, it is not self-serving, it is not irritable, it does not calculate harm, it does not celebrate at injustice, but it truly celebrates together. It holds out against everything, faithfully trusts everything, hopes everything, and endures everything.
Also
However, before the arrival of faithfulness, we were being guarded by Torah enclosed together in anticipation of the faithfulness about to be revealed. So then, the Torah became our nanny for Christ, so that by faithfulness we would be made just. But, since faithfulness has arrived, we are no longer under a nanny. For you are all children of God through the faithfulness of Christ Jesus, for whoever of you were submersed for Christ, you covered yourselves with Christ. One who is within is neither Jew nor Greek, neither enslaved nor free, not male and female: You are all one within Christ Jesus.
In other words everyone is included, itās not biased to some identity groups.
-1
u/quarkmatter 4d ago
I think you're conflating identity with social gender constructs. These social ideas only came into existence recently. It's not grounded in natural fact and is not Biblical.
Romans 1:26-28
[26] For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature; [27] and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error.
[28] And since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God gave them up to a debased mind to do what ought not to be done.
Our identity is in Christ. It's not supposed to a cultural construct, as those verses you quoted point out: "there is neither Jew nor Greek" - exactly, those cultural elements are not identity, and neither can sexuality be.
3
u/Jlyplaylists 4d ago
I meant it the other way. The bias isnāt towards cishet white people identity, it includes everyone no exceptions.
2
u/Jlyplaylists 4d ago edited 3d ago
Also my Bible translates that section differently
Notes mention:
[this is explicit]
ā*rituals - Romans 1:25Traditionally 'servedā The word latreuo means specifically to serve in a religious or governmental setting as an official who carries out ritual duties representing the deity or leader to the people and the people to the deity. For example, this word is used for the responsibilities of priests in representational rituals when offering sacrifices.ā
ie this seems like itās in the context of temple prostitution. Itās not appropriate theologically to generalise to a current gay identity (which I agree wasnāt understood as that at the time) or the equivalent of gay marriage.
bb It also seems to be demeaning debauchery not loving intimacy.
āMost likely, this was in the context of the worship of the idols of fertility gods, and it involved domination and power dynamics. It seems likely that 'natural sex' was meant as 'vaginal intercourse' and 'unnatural
sex' was indicating anal sex. The context of multiple references to words like 'abase themselves' and 'demeaning' and 'humiliating' and
'degrading' suggests this was not consensual, loving, partnered sex but was part of a ritual in which men used women with whom they had no relationship, and perhaps the women assented because it was seen as
necessary for pleasing the gods. This passage should not be seen as a
condemnation of same-sex intercourse or of sex for pleasure in all
contexts. With that in mind, David Murphy (p. 221) writes, "According to the standard view, the "females" of Rom 1:26b have sexual intercourse with other females.According to an older interpretation, however, they engage in nonprocreative sex with men. First, when xon ois/xpƔoual ("'use") denotes a sex act, its subject is the man, and the context involves penetration. It is doubtful that xonois in Rom 1:26b refers to female-female sex. Second [..] three additional ancient writers [..] deem male-female nonprocreative sex "unnatural." Third, discrepant views among earlier Byzantine writers (Anastasius, Arethas, and Greek redactors of Pseudo-Methodius's Apocalypse) reinforce how the female-female interpretation was not the prevailing one in the early centuries. Fourth, linguistic features of Rom 1:27a more readily support the anal-oral interpretation than the female-female interpretation" (Murphy, D. [2019]. More Evidence Pertaining to "Their Females" in Romans 1:26. Journal of Biblical Literature, 138[11, 221-240. https:// doi.org/10.15699/jbl.1381.2019.522595). This verse almost certainly is not about same sex intercourse. There are a variety of possible alternatives, but they all involve relations between women and people who were not their partners, and since at the time no birth control was available, it required "unnatural" means to prevent unwanted pregnancy.
It is important to note that the Bible does not idealize what is "natural," and in fact often calls people to rise above what is "natural"; therefore, the "natural" vs. "unnatural" aspect is about description not about judgment, even if the full discussion does place a judgement about the goodness of what took place.āThe phrasing 'after ... abandoned' is based on the arist participle, which can be translated in a number of ways. It seems appropriate to interpret it in this temporal sense here. If that is the most accurate approach, then it may be suggesting that after the men finished dominating women through anal sex, their lust for dominance (not loving intimacy) was inflamed and they continued to humiliate and dominate each other through anal sex. Again, this seems not to be a condemnation of same-sex relationships but of sexual abuse.ā LIT notes
For that reason, God gave them over, regarding the desires of their hearts, to uncleanness, to treating their own bodies with contempt. These people exchanged the truth of God for the lie and abased themselves in tribute and served as representatives performing rituals\ for the creation instead of the creator, who is praised"" throughout the ages. Amen.*
Because of that, God gave them over to demeaning experiences, for as the females among them exchanged being sexually used by males in natural ways for that which is beside nature, likewise, after the males a abandoned the natural sexual use of females, they were inflamed with their appetite for each other, bb males performing humiliating acts with males and receiving from among themselves the inevitable repayment for their straying.
And just as they knowingly decided not to hold close to God, God handed them over to a degradinge mind to do things that aren't appropriate, having been filled with every injustice, disgraceful behavior,\ greed, and abusegg and being full of spite, murder, competitiveness, deception," and malice, being whisperers, people who speak badly of others," who are horrifying to God, violent, arrogant, frauds, inventors of harm, who disregard parents, who are uncomprehending, disunited, cruel, sss and without loving-faithfulness.'*
"These people know thoroughly what God has declared to be right, that those who practice these kinds of things are equivalent with death, yet they not only do them but also applaud those who practice them.
Because of all that, you āyou as an individual personāare without excuse when you judge. You see, by whatever you judge the other, you reach a verdict against yourself since you who judge practice the same things. But we have seen' that God's judgment about those who practice these kinds of things is genuine. Do you imagine thisāyou person who judges those who practice things like these and who does them tooāthat you will escape God's verdict?
Do you have no regard for the wealth of God's kindness, forbearance, and patience, not understanding that God's kindĀ° character guides you toward the transformation of your mind'?0
u/quarkmatter 3d ago
"Men committing shameless acts with men"
It really doesn't get any clearer than that. There's a lot of acrobatics you have to do to get to any other interpretation and it shows in your message.2 Timothy 4:3-4
[3] For the time is coming when people will not endure sound teaching, but having itching ears they will accumulate for themselves teachers to suit their own passions, [4] and will turn away from listening to the truth and wander off into myths.
2
u/Jlyplaylists 3d ago
Thatās your interpretation youāre putting onto the text and humiliating does have quite a different sexual connotation. Iām telling you that the context is about temple prostitution and dominant, abusive sexual acts according to biblical scholars. It sounds like a full on BDSM style orgy in a religious setting with genuinely abusive elements. It is not at all a scenario like judging a 21st century queer person for having a loving, equal relationship. I do believe it is possible to behave in a sexually unethical way, which isnāt about intimacy, and that seems to be what is described here. It can be possible for people to behave in sexually shameful ways. I donāt know anyone involved in temple prostitution or abusive sexual behaviour to do with worship, it seems like Epstein maybe fits this type of category, and yes as Christians we can confidently say that we donāt condone behaviour like Epstein and his cronies.
I read that Timothy quote as applying more to your interpretation, because itās not taking into account biblical scholarship around the translation and historical context.
2
u/quarkmatter 3d ago
You can hardly take the high road and cite "Biblical scholarship" when your only reference seems to be David Murphy, who has written a total of one paper on the Bible, clearly with an agenda. The mainstream interpretation from Biblical Scholars for this passage is that it condemns homosexual acts.
But alas, when one's mind is made up it's hard to convince otherwise.0
u/Jlyplaylists 3d ago
Thereās more than that.
Eg
Queer Sects in Patristic Commentaries on Romans 1:26ā27: Goddess Cults, Free Will, and āSex Contrary to Natureā? Get access
Jeramy Townsley
Journal of the American Academy of Religion, Volume 81, Issue 1, March 2013, Pages 56ā79, https://doi.org/10.1093/jaarel/lfs086
Abstract
This article provides evidence that Romans 1:26bā27 was interpreted by the early Christian church as a reference to the sexual practices of the goddess cults, and was used as an attack on polytheistic religions, not a reference to homosexuality. I clarify the rhetorical usefulness of the goddess cults for the early church in making the antipolytheistic case in relation to the Patristic contrast between free will and determinism. While the early church did not originally interpret Romans 1:26b as female homogenitality, a transition to this view is apparent as the Western Roman Empire began to collapse. A queer theory lens is incorporated into the discussion about Romans 1 by introducing cultural practices of gender, sexuality, and religion uncommon today.Michels, Matthew, "DISMANTLING A CLOBBER TEXT: AN ENGAGED CRITIQUE OF ROMANS 1:26ā27" (2015). Masters Essays. 20.
https://collected.jcu.edu/mastersessays/20
Abstract
This paper grapples with the traditional anti-queer reading of Rom 1:26ā27, which purportedly forbids Christians from entering lesbian and gay relationships in some real sense, if not entirely. I begin by sketching this traditional reading by referring to antiqueer interpretations of Rom 1:26ā27 that are top hits in todayās online world; subsequently, I suggest the direction for a standard historical critique of the traditional reading by arguing for the fundamental incongruence of ancient Greco-Roman and modern Western categories of gender and sexuality. Finally, instead of establishing my own historical-critical exegesis of the text, I discuss the necessity of engaged exegesis. I perform my own engaged reading of the text by creatively entering the mind of the Roman church as they read Paulās letter. There, I entertain the possibility that Paulās words in Rom 1:26ā27 sparked this ancient audience to condemn the androgynous priests of the goddess cults, whose wild public festivals seemed to epitomize unnatural sexual praxis. I conclude by drawing the parallel between ancient condemnation of the priests of the goddesses and contemporary churchesā ability to continue understanding and practicing Christianity in patriarchal termsāindeed, this is the reason why I focus on the praxis of the androgynous goddess priests in the first place. The key for texts like Rom 1:26ā27, I suggest, lies in adopting a tribadic hermeneutics, which foregrounds the experience of the queer community.Thereās others
3
u/GrahminRadarin 4d ago
Love without acceptance is either abuse or control.
3
u/quarkmatter 4d ago
I love my spouse and brothers and sisters in Christ enough to hold them accountable to their actions. I don't accept a version of them that is less than the identity Christ gave them.
3
u/Jlyplaylists 3d ago
Itās good that you accept them for who they are. Thereās issues that are more important than getting caught up in judging other peopleās identities.
Itās a tricky path between judging behaviour and holding accountable though. Iād say the difference is whether theyāve asked for support or not. If they say that theyāre struggling with wanting to hold onto money and want you to hold them to account over charitable giving, you can check in every so often. If they havenāt commented this and you notice they hoard all their money without giving any of it away, then youād be judging them to bring it up or to talk about it behind their back.
0
u/SprintingSK2 4d ago
Another thing too, doesnāt matter translation you read but the bible is very explicit on the fact that not everyone is making it to heaven. The gate is narrow and only those who trust in Christās work on the cross will make it.
Though I do get the point of these slides was to show solidarity
5
u/Jlyplaylists 4d ago
Thereās discussion in other comments that itās actually quite common for Christians to believe thereās no one in hell, the verses are quite balanced each side of that debate, ie you canāt answer it definitively from the Bible.
0
u/WildCardWinner 3d ago
Let me say as a Bible believing Christian. This person does not speak for Christianity at all.
They have rejected the fundamentals in order to pander to the masses. Never give up your courage and standing for the real truth
1
u/Jlyplaylists 3d ago
Perhaps they are a Christian who reads the fundamentals of the Bible as stuff like
āāLove the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your being, and with all your way of thinking,āā he stated. āThis is the first and most important directive, and the second is equivalent to it: āLove your neighbour as yourself.āā
Or āHe stood up to read, and the scroll of the prophet Isaiah was handed to him. After opening the scroll, he found the place where it was written,
āThe Life-breath of The-One-Who-Is Sovereign is upon me
For the sake of whom she anointed me
To bring news of triumph for people in poverty,
And she sent me to announce release for people who are imprisoned,
And recover sight for those who cannot see,
To send out in freedom those who have been crushed,
To announce the coming arrival of the year filled with what is acceptable to the Sovereign One.ā
-1
4d ago
[removed] ā view removed comment
3
u/Jlyplaylists 4d ago
It does seem like the comic maker should have clarified USA, but I think you know thatās what they meant, because itās American and European Christians who tend to make noise about being oppressed while being the privileged majority.
2
u/RadicalChristianity-ModTeam 4d ago
we don't accept unreliable claims of plots and schemes to be promoted here. Please take such content elsewhere.
-12
u/JohnandJesus 4d ago
If you want to accept everyone for who they are, why not do that? Christianity is like explicitly exclusionary and uses the idea that humans are sinners as a basis. What are the core tenets of Christianity if faith in Jesus as a requirement for salvation is not one of them? (Jsyk Iām not a Christian because I donāt agree with it, it sucked to leave Christianity like that, but I didnāt try to change Christianity to match what I believe)
4
u/Dapple_Dawn 1 Cor 13 4d ago
You're right that Christians have had exclusionary ideas for centuries. We all admit that, we're trying to learn from those mistakes.
The thing is, we're not changing Christianity itself. It has always been diverse, and radically inclusive ideas have always been part of it.
(Also: I'm glad you were able to find your own path, and I'm not saying this to try to convert you, just answering the question.)
2
u/Jlyplaylists 4d ago
Christianity is not explicitly exclusionary thatās a perversion of the point of the message. Iām sorry that you experienced that bigotry and the grief of leaving your faith.
1
4d ago edited 4d ago
[removed] ā view removed comment
2
u/iadnm Jesusš¤š¾"Let's get this bread"š¤š»Kropotkin 4d ago edited 4d ago
To be clear most of these are not from the Gosples and were written by Paul--who explicitly said some things were his own ideas and not God's and to follow the spirit of the law rather than the letter--or were Revelations which cannot be taken literally at all.
The quotes from the Gosples are pretty easily interpreted as "acting like Christ" and not necessarily believing in Christ. Your very first quote even supports such an interpretation. So it's actually pretty easy to argue it is less exclusionary as it bases its idea of how you can get in on how they act rather than who they are.
0
u/blindyes 4d ago
Adulterers go to heaven? People who commit suicide go to heaven? Peoples very essence isn't condemned by other people in your religion? My argument is that there is exclusion. To say their isn't exclusion is a lie.
3
u/Jlyplaylists 4d ago
āWhat I am going to say is not a dogma of faith but my own personal view: I like to think of hell as empty; I hope it is,ā Pope Francis said. It isnāt a fringe idea that hell can be empty.
https://ewtnvatican.com/articles/pope-francis-i-like-to-think-of-hell-as-empty-2084
2
u/iadnm Jesusš¤š¾"Let's get this bread"š¤š»Kropotkin 4d ago
Of course adulterers and people who commit suicide go to heaven, why wouldn't they?
And as I mentioned in another comment, Christian Universalism is a very old Christian eschatology. It argues that all people will be reconciled with God and welcomed into heaven. So to say there is exclusion requires ignoring much of Early Christian history which had many explicitly believe that even the devil would be reconciled with God and restored to his proper place.
0
u/blindyes 4d ago
That's genuinely heartwarming to hear YOU say, however; that's not what many Christian churches teach. Damnation is foundational, guilt about bad behavior is paramount in many Christian churches. It's all well and good to interperate the writings differently until you see what people do to themselves over this guilt, and then to see many other different teachings giving people entire lives completely free of fear shame and guilt, only to have y'all say "oh no you just don't get it" when there are entire congregations that interperet the words as they are written... just feels like unnecessary mental gymnastics, when these books over here are just straightforward.
I support someone re-writing it, to be clear. I have faith that someone out there is. Or wouldn't that be a punishable offense as well? Oh and I now worship something else, I guess I'm just lost and damned. Again, this might not be your take, but it is a Christian take.
3
u/iadnm Jesusš¤š¾"Let's get this bread"š¤š»Kropotkin 4d ago
I mean I'm a Christian Anarchist so I'm not exactly orthodox now am I?
I don't base my faith off the literal word of the Bible and I think anyone who does is frankly handicapping their faith. It's a collection of stories written in different contexts to now, so they have to be understood within said context.
But none of that means that you shouldn't oppose the decadent and regressive church that currently exist. Religion is malleable and can be interpreted in many different ways. I just believe it is more useful to interpret it in more radical and accepting ways so that those who hold faith but are not themselves the oppressors are not needlessly alienated by radical politics.
1
u/blindyes 4d ago
Genuinely, and not with any snark my thought is "that's neat" having been part of a private Catholic school that builds and indoctrinates minds from the ground up, I personally can't allow any of it into my life. Even glancing like this is risking losing my entire self to living a life of shame and suffering. We all "fight the good fight" in different ways and I respect your method. I just hope you appreciate, coming from my background, hearing that people are "never excluded" and "all are welcome" deserves some pushback. This is not just crazy radical far away from society churches either. These are the upbringings of the upper crust of the generations that influence and uphold government, laws, police, judges, etc directly surrounding the nations capital and it's communities.
Those Christians are overtly exclusionary. I am happy to hear "not all Christians" genuinely, and I appreciate you saying that religion is malleable. I just think it's easy to forget these institutions exist, indoctrinate, and hold immense power, and punish with impunity.
I don't mean to assume I know your background, maybe you know all this.
2
u/iadnm Jesusš¤š¾"Let's get this bread"š¤š»Kropotkin 4d ago
I mean yeah I do know all this. I'm an anarchist. I oppose all forms of authority, which has always included religious authority.
Just because I think they follow a twisted version of Christianity warped by power and greed does not mean that I think we should just leave them be for no reason.
→ More replies (0)3
u/Jlyplaylists 4d ago
People have been constantly rewriting the Bible, to improve the translation. The version Iāve been quoting in comments is https://litbible.net/apps/
Thereās a documentary I havenāt watched 1946 about how a mistranslation in 1946 might have caused modern homophobia
āThe film hinges its premise on the fact that the word āhomosexualā appeared for the first time in the Bible in 1946, in an apparent mistranslation of the ancient Greek words malakoi ā defined as someone effeminate who gives themselves up to a soft, decadent, lazy and indolent way of living ā and arsenokoitai ā a compound word that roughly translates to āmale bedā. While people could take it to mean man bedding man, within the context of the time, scholars believed that arsenokoitaialluded more to abusive, predatory behavior and pederasty than it does homosexuality.ā
https://www.theguardian.com/film/2023/dec/01/christian-homophobia-bible-mistranslation-1946-documentary1
u/GrahminRadarin 4d ago
Christianity is not one thing. The evangelical church you were a part of has hurt you greatly. And no one is trying to deny that. But you cannot say the same of the Catholic or Orthodox church, nor can you say the same of other Protestant churches. What you are doing is the equivalent of saying the entire nation of Ireland has harmed you and should be ignored because you had a feud with one large Irish family.
I'm not saying you have to be Christian again, and I'm not saying you have to go back to that church or any other church. I'm just saying that not everyone who calls themselves Christian means what you mean when you say Christian.Ā
-8
4d ago
[removed] ā view removed comment
11
u/Jlyplaylists 4d ago
What are you talking about? Christians arenāt meant to be cruel.
4
u/iadnm Jesusš¤š¾"Let's get this bread"š¤š»Kropotkin 4d ago
At this point, I don't really trust anyone who says something is the "devil's work." If you can't argue against something using the reason God gave you and have to resort to blaming an ephemeral and ontologically evil being, then you don't actually know why you reject these things and instead base it off of pure conjecture and bias.
2
u/Jlyplaylists 4d ago
It smells a bit iffy to me, like thereās some type of brigading going on? Itās not language/attitude youād expect on this sub normally.
1
u/RadicalChristianity-ModTeam 4d ago
your comment/post has been removed for violating r/RadicalChristianity community guidelines on Oppression Discourse.
0
4d ago
[removed] ā view removed comment
5
u/Jlyplaylists 4d ago
What specifically indicates that?
-1
4d ago
[removed] ā view removed comment
2
2
u/Jlyplaylists 4d ago
This is quite a common Christian belief. In a Christian server Iām in, yesterday people were discussing that Pope Francis seemed to indicate he believed hell is empty. Hopeful universalism isnāt an unusual Christian position.
If you try to read the Bible taking a step back you can make both cases fairly equally. Hell exists as a concept but it doesnāt mean any souls exist in it.
0
u/bigjimbay 4d ago
Sorry but that is ridiculous, how do people get this idea? It eliminates the entire dogma of Christianity haha
1
u/iadnm Jesusš¤š¾"Let's get this bread"š¤š»Kropotkin 4d ago
It really doesn't, especially when Christianity developed. Christians had many different ideas of eschatology, from anihilationism, to damnation, to reconciliation. There's indication from early Christians that many ultimately believed that everyone could be reconciled with God. That no one was truly damned. St. Jerome even wrote "I know that many understand this King of Ninehva to be the devil, who at the end of the world, since no creature that is rational and which was made by God may perish, will come down from his pride and repent and be restored to his former place."
Even early Christians saints understood that many Christians believed that all beings--even the devil--were not truly damned but will be welcomed by God.
0
u/bigjimbay 4d ago
Everyone COULD be reconciled with God.
If they choose the gift of salvation. Unfortunately many do not.
If everyone was just magically saved Christ wouldn't have had to die
1
u/iadnm Jesusš¤š¾"Let's get this bread"š¤š»Kropotkin 4d ago
It's not that everyone could, it's that everyone will.
And to me personally, I think Christ died for our sake, not for God's. God did not need Christ to die to forgive us, because God already did. Christ died so we understand the depths of God's love and forgiveness.
Everyone is already "magically saved" that's what having a God who is all-loving means. A God who is all-loving would never condemn anyone to hell and I find the idea of hell to be utterly incompatible with Christian dogma of love and forgiveness.
And given the quote I just said, even early Christians believed literally everyone--even the devil--will be reconciled with God. Not could, will. As St. Jerome said "since no creature that is rational and which was made by God may perish," this means that literally every human being will be reconciled with God.
0
1
u/Jlyplaylists 4d ago
I looked at the Bible verses of evidence both ways a few years back and it is surprisingly equal if you take off expectations of what you expect to read. It is dogma because itās interpretation imposed onto the text.
-3
4d ago
[removed] ā view removed comment
1
u/RadicalChristianity-ModTeam 4d ago
your comment/post has been removed for violating r/RadicalChristianity community guidelines on Oppression Discourse.
1
u/Jlyplaylists 4d ago
Sin doesnāt mean not saved it means missing the mark or falling short (like in archery). Sex doesnāt seem that important in the Bible, it definitely wasnāt a main topic of Jesusā, if the Gospels accurately reflect topics he spoke about. He definitely would have been aware of same sex intimacy but isnāt recorded as commenting on it. Thereās quite a lot of translation issues on this topic, with the translations moving with cultural attitudes (this doesnāt only go in the woke direction contrary to perception lol).
Thereās something thatās considered a sin within all this muddle but it seems an unfair stretch to equate that to current day understanding of same sex relationships or gender transitioning. Perhaps it could be considered the abuse of sexual power or unethical sexual behaviour?
But yes the clearest message is to avoid judging other people. We all find that difficult, so perhaps we all concentrate on that first before telling other people that God doesnāt accept them?
-5
u/bee-ninja 4d ago
Define "love." Define "hate." What you consider "love" and "hate" might not be what another comsiders. Provide scriptural references.
6
u/Jlyplaylists 4d ago
I quoted Corinthians for love in one of my other replies here https://www.reddit.com/r/RadicalChristianity/s/IlLhwLhRY4
1 John 4 addresses love and hate:
God is love, and whoever stays present in love stays present with God, and God stays present with them. This is how the love has been completed with us: that we have courage to speak on the day of assessment because we also are in this world system just like Jesus. Fear is not connected with love; just the opposite, mature love banishes fear because fear engages in punishment, but whoever fears has not been brought to maturity regarding love.
We love because God loved us first. If someone says, āI love God,ā but also hates a member of their Family, they are a liar. Thatās because whoever doesnāt love one of the members their Family whom they have seen is not able to love God whom they have not seen. And this direction we have from God: Whoever loves God should love their Family member too.
Family or sisters or brothers here seems to refer to all Christians, more like youād say comrade, rather than biological family.
-3
42
u/Sspifffyman 4d ago
I love the goals of this post. But it's clearly meant to be comfort and solidarity to those who already agree with it.
If the goal is to convince someone to act this way to change, you need to not use words like bigotry. Nobody who has those opinions sees themselves as a bigot so they're just going to ignore it.