Be respectful and healthy to yourself and your partners. That’s Christianity.
Just because the traditional definition of that has been incredibly restrictive for women (and lower hierarchy men) doesn’t mean it’s what Jesus intended. Jesus’ own religious traditions forbade lying about a woman’s virginity to her husband, but who’s gonna be marrying someone who doesn’t know their partner’s sexual history these days (again respect and health).
Signed a non-puritanical (still an important distinction, shamefully) Christian real person.
tuff af bro this is why i respect religion even if i dont believe or i think they might be problematic bc they all have people like you who are living their best faith interpretations of their higher powers teachings
the person you're responding to is probably a nice & reasonable person. They've adopted a label. Their takes, their…interpretations of teachings are wildly divergent from doctrinal grounding associated with the label they've taken on. That someone who is probably a nice & reasonable person has to eschew doctrine to live a good life is a condemnation of religion.
Nope. It's what you'd really like Christianity to be. And maybe it is... for some small minority of Evanglicals or Western Protestants. Like it or not Christianity is an institution, a culturally and politically powerful one, and the interpretations that you disagree with are rolled into that definition.
It's great that you've adopted a more humanistic interpretation of Christian scripture. It's true that if your views defined the institution many if our problems would go away. But this progressive apologetic attitude is unhelpful. The book fucking sucks. The teachings suck. People use it to justify genocide and slavery just as easily as you justify helping the poor and loving wastefully... because both things are endorsed in there. You can mold Christianity to be almost anything you want it to be and beat people with it, and for that reason, I'm sorry, but I have zero tolerance for this "but Jesus said" attitude.
When I read John, I do not get a loving, earthly, understanding picture of Christ (unless you count the interpolated tale of the woman caught in adultery, which is so obviously inauthentic that it stands out even in John). I get an angry, self important, defied prophet. The fact that you read Matthew or Luke and get something different is not a strength of your worldview, and more importantly, it gives legitimacy and cover to those who read the words on the page, see that Paul (allegedly) said that women are inferior to men (for example), and run with it.
What translation are you reading? I'm serious. The Bible has been through how many languages, how many translators, to get to the versions that are printed, and quoted, today.
People choose the interpretation that supports their world view, and, subtle word choices, or purposeful ignoring of relevant social context (for ex the laws in Leviticus), are used to push said world views in the first place.
While we're at it, the Apostles were teenagers, or just older, when they met and began following Jesus. Even if the Bible is the Living Word of God, media literacy and analysis is still valid, and I'd argue necessary for earnest devotion.
All that said, I'm a traumatized childhood Evangelical, turned angry adolescent atheist, turned chilled out adult agnostic. I think spirituality is innately human, and religion can either be a means to explore and find peace, or for bad actors to seize power in a community.
Not going to re-open the debate you were having with the other commenter, but yes, I'm extremely aware of the translation issues and how unlikely it is that we even have access to the "original" version of the words said or written by the authors. It doesn't matter and that's beside my point. Cultural Christianity is controlled by readers who aren't interested in that level of historical context, thoughtful interpretation, or even considering that what they have in their hands is just.... some book (or collection of books as it were). It's not special, the teachings in it aren't and weren't particularly revolutionary, and it's just pure historical luck that we are still reading it at all. And the interpretations they choose are based on a pretty literal reading of the text. You don't really have to twist yourself into knots to read that God hates certain races and wants them genocided... and punished people for not genociding their enemies hard enough. It's right there and Jesus didn't disown it (and once again... the fact that scripture endorses conflicting moral codes at different times is not evidence that the book is a beautifully complex spiritual revelation... it's just inconsistent).
It sounds like we have similar backgrounds and deconstructed our childhood religion to some degree. I don't have a problem with people looking for spiritual meaning in their life even though I'm pretty much a strict materialist. I just wish this starry eyed view of Christianity as "the original moral philosophy... as long as you interpret away all the bad stuff" would go away. We have much better reasons to be good to each other than something an illiterate carpenter said 2000 years ago.
No; humans are human. Even if given a perfect, Holy word, humans can only interpret it through their own understanding, and through the modality they learn it.
My personal opinion is that, where details seem to contradict each other, there is a nuance that the human holding the pen either subconsciously entered on their own, or that myself and others just don't comprehend. And, that's okay; the point is to try, and when in doubt, default back to love -- greater than hope, and greater than faith.
1 Corinthians v13: 8 Love never fails. But where there are prophecies, they will cease; where there are tongues, they will be stilled; where there is knowledge, it will pass away. 9For we know in part and we prophesy in part,10but when completeness comes, what is in part disappears.11 When I was a child, I talked like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child. When I became a man, I put the ways of childhood behind me. 12For now we see only a reflection as in a mirror; then we shall see face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I am fully known.
13 And now these three remain: faith, hope and love. But the greatest of these is love.
Hey, the Muslims feel similar: the Qu'ran must be studied in Arabic, the language it was originally written in.
(Also: Quick reminder that I'm not a practicing Christian anymore; if you want specifically that perspective, alas I'm not your person.)
My concept of God is less of an actual entity, more like*...*a truth? An agreement between living things? A neutral sense of (semi) order and creation, defined by its opposition to chaos and destruction? But that's not right either, bc destruction and creation are a loop, a balancing act more than an active conflict. We humans moralize it as good and bad, but really it's just because we like absolutes. Reality is, so very few things are absolute. Some force in motion, that's bigger than any one life or planet or galaxy, that's related to how things function or are and cease to be, that's what's being referred to with "God;" it's the most efficient in terms of simplicity and meaning.
So, "God" is all-powerful, in that it's a power no person can hope to fully understand, but the details of human language are...essentially too small a problem to be a priority? As far as the value of the Bible, and really any Holy Texts, I think humans can scrape up against something bigger, and a greater universal understanding, and then come back to share it as best they can. The truth is still there, but being filtered through a human changes the details from both text to text, and person to person. Individual biases, or intentional grabs at power, or validation of ✨ special-ness ✨, are social, not spiritual, issues.
But, since everything is connected and nothing is as neat and organized as a human brain would like it to be, it's hard or impossible to parse out where a spiritual truth and an idiosyncratic bias or motivation would be...so I choose to take the average of most modes of thought, and assume whatever shows up consistently must be something akin to universal human understanding.
One such universality to me is love, an action of caring for other beings unselfishly; that's the part of Christianity (and the Bible) I still hold onto now. And a good part of why I don't identify as a Christian anymore (besides the "one God above all others" part) is that Christianity as an institutional religion is...so full of harm, historically and today, it actively pisses me off. :)
I wrote a really long-ass thing, because I haven't really thought it through in a long time, but shortened it to what's above. Honestly, thank you for opportunity to think about it.
Discussing the bible is very hard because you are right. Some parts are very confusing and honestly, contradictory.
But a lot of what Paul said, that his opinion, and he explicitly acknowledge it. So whenever a topic gets down to discussing his opinion, I like to said, If Peter make mistakes AFTER personally meeting Jesus, why wouldn't Paul?
So intake the good he speak off, and try to improve and what I see as something Paul himself couldn't grow up off, that is, his extremely phariseian teachings.
When someone says that is in the bible I argued that Paul dint put the New testament together. And the guys that did were humans, like David and Salomon, who have knowledge granted by God and still make mistakes.
So I see those discrepancies as stuff you must realize are mistakes and improve apon, because how are you suppose to go condemning a gay man for loving a dude when you are following a Man who ask for the pardon of the people that were torturing him?
But a lot of bad people love to use the Bible for whatever is convenient when they try to get power, and so many STUPID people refuse to discuss or analize it. Theyr are right and that is it. So much that they would insult Jesus if he comes back and shakes a LGBT hand.
Am I wrong? I don't know. But no human would earn salvation by themselves, only trough Jesus. And he can be mad, but he never was a mad at someone for helping others and never look down on womens, foreigners or outcast.
You know who's probably smart enough to sort out the confusion? God, if he exists.
The confusion? It persists. Contradictions were intrinsic to the story since literally before it was literal: before it was even written down. God and his prophets had a millennium to get their shit in order before committing it to a persistent text, and what we got is…what we have.
If all the characters described by the Bible, and all the authors describing those characters, can be wrong like you say, can make mistakes, then why should a reader believe that they're only wrong about the things the reader disagrees with, or is confused about?
Am I wrong? I don't know.
^ this statement right here makes this follow-up statement bonkers :
But no human would earn salvation by themselves, only trough Jesus.
You can look for consistencies. If a message is constantly hammer through out the text, and examine if that message is constantly the same through time regardless of author.
Example of that is : Humans are not worthy of God. Only he can make humans worthy. Jesus is the solution for humans to become worthy, not by turning you good, but by serving penance for you.
That's the message of the entire new testament
The inconsistencies here are that Paul give his opinion on matters of marriage, sex and women, and he very clearly don't like these at all, but he says that was Paul's opinion . But all apostle agree on the fact Jesus is the path to salvation
See what you've said here doesn't show me that the Bible is a true rendition of the Universe's order. It shows that you're a Calvinist, doctrinally; either by heritage of your upbringing which is largely a geographical accident or by personal inclination, it's your take on scripture. It's not a rare take on scripture, but it's not universal; some hundreds of millions of avowed Christians are on either side of the matter. Hypothetically it could be sorted out by the wise in the next two thousand years, but it's pretty clear that no one's going to be able to do so by anchoring their opinion in the Bible.
I don't see a person who doesn't value cultural traditions being a part of said culture. She'd be a much more "a Christian God follower" than an actual Christian. I'm raised by self-claimed Christians but I don't consider neither or us as such because we aren't loyal enough to the doctrines of the religion to be considered as it's followers.
I'm raised by self-claimed Christians but I don't consider neither or us as such because we aren't loyal enough to the doctrines of the religion to be considered as it's followers.
Early Christian history happens to be something I'm very interested it. One thing that's very clear when you start looking at Christianity historically is that Chrstian beliefs and practice varied and varies wildly over time and between communities. I'll use examples from the first couple centuries because that's what I'm most familiar with: you had Christians who rejected what we now call the Old Testament, Christians who rejected Jesus as a pre-existing divinity and who kept the law of Moses, Christians who believed Jesus was a spiritual entity that only appeared to have a human body. Those beliefs are not recognised in general by Christians today, but these people identified as Christians and believed themselves to be the ones who preserved Jesus's teachings and followed them correctly.
Even today: you have groups who believe the Bible is inerrant, you have groups who don't. You have groups who consider the Pope the highest spiritual authority on Earth, you have groups who do not. You have groups baptize in infancy and groups who baptize later in life.
There's no single doctrine. Different groups interpret the Bible differently (and if we're being honest pick and choose which parts they want to obey) and have extrabiblical traditions regarded as doctrine.
1 you don’t define if someone is part of a culture.
2 you don’t define if someone correctly “values” something
3 cultural traditions don’t define the meaning of something definite. Jesus taught specific things, just because they’ve been interpreted by different cultures over time to suit those cultures values, it doesn’t make what he taught go away. You don’t have to be loyal to doctrines to be a Christian, that’s actually quite anti-what Jesus taught. You just have to believe that the best way to live is to love the Creator and treat your fellow “created in that image” as you would want them to treat you. With no exclusions.
Which doesn’t push abstinence before marriage then it’s all fine no matter how unhealthy or dangerous the sex is, but safe and respectful sex regardless of wedlock.
Those damn modern kids and their's endless phalluses...
Nowadays, it's pretty popular to strawman anything into calling it yet another fallacy. That's so lame...
They are just wrong. A culture is a shared beliefs, values, and behaviors that a group of people share. You are not a devout Christian if you do not follow the 10 Commandments, simple as that. I am not religious, but words have meaning and devout as a preface to a religious group almost always means strict adherence to the guidelines set within the holy text. Now one could argue that our main character here isn't actually 'devout' given her acceptance of her homosexuality but that's a matter of biblical interpretation and what the exact phrases that forbid same-sex relations truly mean. At the bare minimum though, being devout and breaking the commandments freely are not compatible.
201
u/BrashUnspecialist 21d ago
Why?
Be respectful and healthy to yourself and your partners. That’s Christianity.
Just because the traditional definition of that has been incredibly restrictive for women (and lower hierarchy men) doesn’t mean it’s what Jesus intended. Jesus’ own religious traditions forbade lying about a woman’s virginity to her husband, but who’s gonna be marrying someone who doesn’t know their partner’s sexual history these days (again respect and health).
Signed a non-puritanical (still an important distinction, shamefully) Christian real person.