This is a genuine question, because one of the reasons I left Christianity (I was raised Christian) was that I didn’t like how they hate gay people, are pro-life, etc., and overall are pretty hypocritical. But as I got older, I realized there are Catholics who are pro-choice, aren’t homophobic, and don’t have an issue with having sex before marriage, etc., and basically are not stereotypical religious people at all. But I have to ask—how do they justify this? I mean, it must be very confusing, because if the Bible does say being gay is a sin and you are not homophobic and are pro-LGBTQ+, then you are basically saying sinning is okay, which goes against their very religion. How about Catholics who swear? Basically, how do liberal Christians/Catholics justify their religion? Why be religious if you aren’t going to go all in?
Why is the question in the title phrased that way? Its couched so many times I had a hard time understanding if I was browsing lemmy or a furniture store.
Lame jokes aside, this is an important question to ask but I think that some of your assumptions aren’t totally true. You’re on the right track in that you see that there are other traditions that may believe or uphold one thing or the other, but assuming the bible says one thing or another is not that helpful. If I asked multiple people what they thought about Ronald Reagan, Martin Luther King Jr., Simon Bolivar, or John Lennon, I’m just going to get different answers. Heck, I would get different ideas of those people just by reading different biographies. It doesn’t mean that there isn’t a single set of facts that we’re all working with, but that our experiences and knowledge (or what we know so far) are going to shape our perspective on anything and everything. As we learn more and experience more, our perspective may change as well.
Book, chapter, verse only gets you so far; the understanding of context and references and hyperlinks that the bible makes between the books are important to understanding why something is written there. The books that make up the bible were written at different times to different people going through different things, not to us, today. That doesn’t mean it’s irrelevant to us, but that we’re not going to understand it as well if we’re ignorant of that. If I flew to Japan and expected everyone to speak my language and adapt to my mannerisms it would be pretty rude and I would not have a productive experience. The books that make up the bible act as a singular work that points to everything that Jesus of Nazareth did. “A unifying story that leads to Jesus,” to borrow a phrase from The Bible Project. The bible is not a golden list of rules handed down from on high. It is a series of writings from different people in vastly different circumstances all inspired by the God of Abraham, Israel, and Jacob. There are laws and there is advice, but it is ultimately a work to tell about the story of a God who spends a long time with all humanity to show them a better way to live, ultimately in becoming like we are to exemplify it Himself. What that means to you is up to you. To many people who don’t seem to ‘be going the whole way,’ consider that to them they are going the whole way, it just may not look like it according to your tradition or perspective. They may very well be working out their faith and are doing their best. Ask them why they do or believe certain things, give them the benefit of the doubt, come to your own conclusions. The bible is huge and varied and at times reassuring and other confusing. It’s fine. This wasn’t written to or or for or about me, maybe I can’t relate to some things, but that doesn’t mean I can’t still try to learn something from it.
I grew up in a very conservative, fundamental, protestant tradition. In some ways, it was unhelpful. In other ways, I’m glad I had it as a foundation. Learning and experiencing more as I grew helped me let go of a lot of unhelpful notions (i.e. the bible is a set of rules, there is only one right way to be a christian, everything is to and about me, etc.). Heck, it helped to just travel and learn more beyond the eurocentric idea that all that Christianity has ever been is catholics and protestants; to learn about Ethiopian orthodoxy, St. Thomas’ churches in west India, various early churches, and more. It helps to give people the benefit of the doubt. Be curious, not judgmental. When you see someone worshipping in a different way, ask yourself why, ask them why. Don’t assume them to be heretics on the spot. Life in general is more productive and interesting that way.
Sorry to rant, here’s a meme for your dopameme.
not stereotypical religious people at all
Tons of religious folks are compassionate and generous. They live by their religion’s themes instead of obsessing over passages and worshipping demagogues.
It’s not hard to justify. “Love thy neighbor” is the heart of Christianity.
It’s the hateful fundamentalists, “traditionalists” and such that give them a bad name. The reputation is deserved, but it’s not fair to everyone else TBH.
The bible doesn’t say being gay is a sin. At worst, there’s an old testament law against bisexuality (that may just be about not cheating on your wife with a man), and a new testament story about God making some homophobic Romans gay to punish them.
More importantly than the ambiguity of either the old testament laws or the post-gospel epistles however are the actual techings attributed to Jesus. Each of the four gospels tells the story slightly differently, but two stories are applicable here.
The first is the story of the Mary who was neither Jesus’s mother nor bestie, but just a random Jewish girl who was caught cheating with a married man and was about to be gang-murdered by an angry mob chucking stones at her until she died. Obvious sexual sin, and apparently the customary punishment. But God essentially says “I tell you what, SURE she’s a sinner, how about y’all get someone who isn’t to start this execution right.”
( Which, when coupled with a few later passages about leaving judgement for God, honestly let’s any Christian ignore anyone else’s sin entirely.)
The second story is a bit more on point, and is contained in all four gospels as essentially the thesis of the new religion. Jesus was asked what the most important part of the law was, and he essentially said “love” twice. To love God with all that you are, and love everyone else as you love yourself. And then went on to imply that one could derive all of celestial law from just those two. Which means any Christian can and should ignore any hateful old testament law if they honestly feel it is wrong.
(Which can sound like a cop out until you get back to the “we are all sinners” point. It doesn’t matter if homosexuality or premarital sex are sins, because being a hateful jerk or judgemental ass are also sins and the only way anyone gets to avoid hell is if God decides to not give us the horrible fate we deserve.)
The Christianity I practice is a religion based around the idea that God created everything, loves us all, and really just wants us to not be dicks to each other.
There isn’t enough room in a life concerned with the “new” commandment to love everyone as we love ourselves to be a dick about anyone else’s sex life. As long as you’re honest with your lovers and do your best to not spread STDs, whether or not your seventy-five member atheistic informal polycule is sinful or not is between you and God.
In particular, I think the issue is likely a misinterpretation of Leviticus 18:22, which is thus using a YLT:
`And with a male thou dost not lie as one lieth with a woman; abomination it is .
Bisexuality is, indeed, a form of homosexuality, but justified with both binary sexes. While yes, what you do with your sex life is yours, as long as it isn’t pushed onto us who hate that lifestyle (or won’t practice it), we don’t give a rip about it.
Swearing is fine. “Taking the Lord’s name in vain” is about doing evil things in the name of God.
The “law” that is repeated most often in the New Testament is that love is important. It even says that love is the fulfillment of the law.
Leviticus is Old Testament and only applies to priests (who are not Christians, Christians have no business following anything in the OT).
lol it’s funny how you guys pick and choose what’s relevant based on a personal idea.
If the bible can be nitpicked so much, it clearly isn’t a source of truth for the divine.
“I came not to destroy the law but to fulfill it.”
Also being a Jew - Jesus’ teachings would have been added on top of all the genocidal, self-victimization of the Old Testament Jews.
I’m an atheist who has thoroughly studied the bible with the help of a concordance. Hope that helps.
My go to response for the anti gay Christians is: Do you eat shellfish? Have you ever worn a shirt with blended fabrics? Those are listed right beside the laying with a man, but nobody’s trying to ban blended fabrics or boycott seafood restaurants.
Anyone can look the other way on rules they don’t want to follow.
If you can find community in a church that shares your values and beliefs, then I highly recommend it!
“Blended fabrics” happened to be specifically linen and wool. Anything else, from what I researched, is fine. The verse from the YLT is as follows (Deuteronomy 22:11):
`Thou dost not put on a mixed cloth, wool and linen together.
Apparently, from what I searched, only the Levitical priests were to have this combination as a result of this. Otherwise, people would be confused if a non-priest were to wear this combination.
For your point on shellfish, that’s directly in reference to the Kashrut system (not the one Khazars practice nowadays) found in Leviticus 16. It’s that simple, really.
Those are two of 83 commandments most people who practice the Scriptures absolutely hate.
all Christians pick and choose what to take at face value, and what to take in context from the Bible. The Bible permits and arguably advocates for slavery in several places. Mosaic law forbids wearing blended fabric.
Also there is both a reference to an abortifacient and an explanation that an induced abortion is required to be performed by a priest in the case of Adultery (Numbers, lots of English translations obfuscate this detail)
Lots of leftist Catholics i’ve met consider the words of Jesus to trump all other passages, similar to how Muslims give different credence to different Hadith depending on the purported witness. In this reading it’s pretty easy to come to a mostly left-leaning worldview.
I would also add that Catholics in general do not consider the Bible to be literally true descriptions of events that actually happened. Most Catholics, including most Catholic theologians, see the Bible as the word of God, but consider the stories contained within to range from entirely allegorical to semi-historical (but even then still largely allegorical).
Could not agree more - Christianity is supposed to be about the teachings of Jesus.
The vast majority of the Bible is not about that stuff, but it provides context for it.
Jesus taught respect for others and unconditional love. Surprisingly, Penny Arcade probably summed it up in the most succinct way I’ve ever seen it phrased: "Jesus says “don’t be a dick” ".
Someone would have to be delusional to look at the people that Jesus mixed with and advocated for, and conclude that he wouldn’t have similarly defended the marginalised groups of our time.
The Bible starts to fall apart very quickly if you interpret everything as universal and literal. Generally, people trying to understand the Bible will view it as a collection of historical documents, written by different people, to different people, at different times. For example, its pretty much universally understood that rules against eating pork were specifically for Jews, and possibly even for that time period only. In terms of the “pro-life” stuff, the Bible doesn’t really even say anything about it apart from a song that references conception poetically, although it does notably include instructions on how to perform an abortion so… and for the homophobia, its much more intensely debated because of both the historical context, and the wishy-washy language within the Bible itself.
I’d absolutely love if someone would explain to me what a ‘Jew’ even is. Is it a bloodline, or is it a religion? Is it both, is it neither but something else?
I was told I’m Jewish because I was circumcised, but I don’t fucking even know. My grandparents were Mormon, so like what the fuck, why should I believe in anything?
Its a bloodline, or a religion, or an ethnicity, depending on the context. In the case of the person telling you that you’re Jewish, they likely were thinking of the religion, but clearly had absolutely no idea what they were talking about.
The word “Jew” is actually something that was made up in the 12th century. The correct term, as found in the Wycliffe Bible, is “Judean” or “Judahite”. Us Khazars made this up as a wizard’s spell, and it doesn’t mean anything anymore. Khazars are, indeed, so-called Jews by religion, not blood. We are Turkic mongrels (mutts) who roam because our behavior got us kicked out of about 111 countries or so (2 recently within the past 2 years I think).
The Judaism most people refer to is actually Babylonian Talmudism, in which believes there will be a third temple (of which is impossible), and on top of that
To your point that you’re Jewish by religion because you were circumcised is actually barbaric. No longer is it a requirement from my understanding, but from the heart side (circumcision of the heart) instead. Physical circumcision is actually unnecessary, and even one rabbi admitted that it was for sexual control.
The Scriptures are literal and symbolic at the same time, considering that it’s how it was interpreted historically.
As far as “pro-life” is concerned, the Scriptures’ silence on this matter is because, from what I understand, you never sacrificed your children to strange gods. Abortion is, to most (including myself), a form of ritualistic human sacrifice nowadays, which is why most people are pro-life.
The prohibitions against pork and other unclean meats are still in effect to this very day. Only if a commandment required a Levitical priesthood (this was since replaced with Melchizedek) and/or a temple (which won’t be built a third time), we don’t have to do it anymore. This was since 31 A.D., in fact.
For the unclean foods bit, Jesus may have retconned that with Mark 7:19.
What Messiah Yeshua’s talking about isn’t meat. Instead, it has to do with eating with those who don’t practice what you practice. This comes straight from the NIV disinterpretation (of which is intentional), saying all meats are clean. This isn’t true once you look at the Hebraic (notice I didn’t say “Jewish”) understanding of it.
When you say intentional, do you mean it’s interpreted that way as part of an agenda? Why would someone do this? Other versions of the verse make similar purity claims as well. From the surrounding verses, it sounds to me like Jesus is saying what you eat does not matter in the context of morals/sin rather than it being symbolic of people with different practices.
It was interpreted in such a way to allow anyone to eat meat that isn’t food according to Leviticus, and the “Food Chapter” as it’s called. It was a way to basically disregard that commandment (one of eighty and three) entirely. And yes, it was intentional.
Also, the Kashrut laws (not Kosher, that’s different) are in effect to this very day, hence, the list of meats that are not food.
Question, what are ‘unclean meats’ in the modern day of cooking?
Yes, I’ve seen videos of improperly prepared meats, they come in all forms, including Captain Brainworm eating half raw bear meat…
But now in modern times, we know how to fully and properly cook meat to avoid such parasites and other issues. So, what’s the issue of updating the rules to reflect modern knowledge and cooking technology?
These are the meats that aren’t considered food in the Scriptures:
Land (Does not chew the cud or fully part the hoof, must have both to be clean):
Armadillo - Badger - Bear - Beaver - Boar - Camel - Cat - Cheetah - Coyote - Dog - Donkey - Elephant - Fox - Gorilla - Groundhog - Hare - Hippopotamus - Horse - Hyena
Jackal - Kangaroo - Leopard - Lion - Llama (alpaca, vicuña) - Mole - Monkey - Mouse - Mule - Muskrat - Onager - Opossum - Panther - Peccary - Pig (hog, bacon, ham, lard, pork) - Porcupine
Rabbit - Raccoon - Rat - Rhinoceros - Skunk - Slug - Snail (escargot) - Squirrel - Tiger - Wallaby - Weasel - Wolf - Wolverine - Worm - Zebra
Birds:
Albatross - Bat - Bittern - Buzzard - Condor - Coot - Cormorant - Crane - Crow - Cuckoo - Eagle - Flamingo - Grebe - Grosbeak - Gull - Hawk - Heron - Kite - Lapwing - Loon - Magpie
Osprey - Ostrich - Owl - Parrot - Pelican - Penguin - Plover - Rail - Raven - Roadrunner- Sandpiper - Seagull - Stork - Swallow - Swift - Vulture - Water Hen - Woodpecker
Insects:
All except some in the locust family
Reptiles and Amphibians:
Alligator - Blindworm - Caiman - Crocodile - Frogs - Lizard - Newts - Salamanders - Snakes - Toads - Turtles
Fish and Marine Animals (No fins or scales, must have both to be clean):
Abalone - Bullhead - Catfish - Clam - Crab - Crayfish - Cuttlefish - Dolphin - Eel - European Turbot - Jellyfish - Limpet - Lobsters - Marlin - Mussels
Octopus - Otter - Oysters - Paddlefish - Porpoise - Prawn - Scallop - Seal - Shark - Shrimp - Squid (calamari) - Stickleback - Sturgeon - Swordfish - Walrus - Whale
Armadillos and Raccoons are native to the Americas There are a few more that seem ahistorical (Penguin, Opossum, Zebra, Panther, Wallaby). Perhaps this list is from a modern source?
Very interesting. It would maybe be quicker to list the animals that are kosher
Wow damn, is there a way to double save a post on Lemmy/Fediverse?
I need to reformat the list a bit, but I just did a quick search on it, and this was exactly what came up.
What you’ve already posted is perfectly cromulent, but if you feel you should reformat and update the list, well if I may ask, please let me know tomorrow. I do actually like to learn…
Granted, I’m not really who you’re asking, but:
Most of us got our religion before our politics, and seek to square our political positions with our ethical framework, not the other way around.
This is how
Accusing a Christian of cherry picking their political positions from the bible is like accusing a cook of cherry picking the recipe from an online story about a great date and adopting a dog.
Sure, but in this case what they cherry-pick is the part of the recipe that involves adopting the dog, then they shoot the dog and declare themselves the best chefs ever.
Not religious but my mom was Methodist and open-minded. Basically she said the Bible was a document from a different time, and the most important commandments were to love your neighbor and take care of the least of us.
The behavioral rules she just thought relics of an earlier time, said many had been solved with science (ok to eat pork, be gay, whatever).
My grandma was Catholic and she just basically wasn’t evangelical, right? So sure, maybe we were going to hell but that was between us & God, nothing to do with her. On homosexuality she (like others I’ve talked to) said, yeah of course gay people were made that way by God, that was their cross to bear, they had to be celibate. “So do nuns and monks and priests, some people are not supposed to have sex, it’s always been that way.”
I did hear the entire compilation of it was released around 700 years after Revelation was finished in 95 A.D.
I just don’t see the letters written between first-century house-churches as personal commandments from God to me. What you’re reading is the story of the early believers, not divine instruction.
Gay sex is disparaged in various verses, some of which come from Old Testament divine commandments. It’s not just in letters.
It’s less clear about abortion but throughout the Bible fetuses are generally considered to have distinct personhood from their mothers. That tends to imply certain rights.
Old Testament divine commandments
Those were conditions of the covenant God made with the nation of Israel. They have nothing to do with Christian doctrine, only history.
I believe you are right for the old testament commandments, but it does seem like cherry picking to say the early restrictions should only apply to the Israelites, and later verses that would expand the scope in letters from Paul shouldn’t be accepted.
It’s not cherry picking to recognize who was talking to who, and whether or not their words should be taken as divine instruction to each individual who reads them. It’s just using your head instead of letting religious authorities put onerous demands on the populace. Jesus said love your neighbor as you love yourself and do unto others as you’d have them do unto you. Anything that contradicts that is obviously not to be taken seriously (such as disowning your kids for being gay/trans).
It’s cherry picking because it’s choosing which pieces of the bible to give credence to and which to ignore based on preference. Paul was chosen as God’s chosen vessel; I don’t see why his instructions to the early church should be cast aside.
Jesus did say to love thy neighbor, yet it is easy to find examples of God condoning slavery and demanding genocides. Unless you intend to also deny those parts, it’s pretty clear he’s willing to contradict that commandment against whoever he considers sinful. For gay men, he prescribed the death penalty, although that was part of the covenant with Israel. I don’t think the new testament says how they should be punished, just that it’s a sin.
It’s cherry picking because it’s choosing which pieces of the bible to give credence to and which to ignore based on preference.
Absolutely not. You can give 100% credence to the bible without the idea that every single word of it is a personal commandment from God to you.
Paul was chosen as God’s chosen vessel
I don’t agree. How do you know that? By what means was this determined? Don’t try to tell me; ask yourself these questions.
Jesus did say to love thy neighbor, yet it is easy to find examples of God condoning slavery and demanding genocides.
No, it’s easy to find stories where people claimed God condoned those things. You seem to be taking a fundamentalist approach to scripture here, and it’s an approach I just don’t agree with. It’s based on traditions created and perpetuated by the sickest, most evil, lying, stealing, child-raping people throughout history. Why the fuck would you take their word for it?
Anyway nice talkin to ya, have a nice day.
justify their religion?
Hmmm. You seem to think religion needs to be justified?
What about opinions, do they need to be justified as well?
And what happens if their justifications (for both cases) does not please you, or does not meet your criteria? Serious question.
Why be religious if you aren’t going to go all in?
Yes, that is a weird and sad phenomenon. Lots of people seem to just not care anymore what they even think or believe.
Christians tend to pick and choose which parts of their word of God are actually infallible and which parts don’t apply anymore. There’s no reason to think God changed His mind on gay sex, tattoos, or wearing garments of mixed materials, because there was no justification for banning them in the first place. If a Christian is a true believer, they should be satisfied with “God said it, so it must be true”.
That’s the problem with relying on an external authority for morality. When it tells you to do something you don’t like, you have to either change your behavior accordingly or realize that you actually don’t trust it as an authority. Christians being by and large massive hypocrites, they tend to do the latter without admitting to it. Because if they did admit it, they wouldn’t be Christians anymore.
It’s pretty rare to find someone who genuinely takes it all on faith, that stealing cookies from the cookie jar indeed warrants eternal punishment. For everyone else, if they were honest with themselves, they would admit that if you only follow the rules you agree with, they were never actually rules for you.
The whole thing with religion is not needing to prove or justify anything to other people.
It’s a social “team” and teams need goals to exist.
When it wasn’t the Gays or abortions it was something else.
The crusades are an obvious example.
The church has cycled through enemies for the entire time its been around. Hell, they even split the religion into different religions just to have someone to play as the “other” and to consolidate power under new leadership.
I’m just gonna drop this link here as food for thought, I don’t particularly care to continue my side of the conversation, as I think everything that should be said on my end was said here under my post…
