community for lgbtq+ christians or those learning about christianity
from RicoPeru@lemmy.blahaj.zone to newcommunities@lemmy.world on 01 Jul 16:46
https://lemmy.blahaj.zone/post/28309758
from RicoPeru@lemmy.blahaj.zone to newcommunities@lemmy.world on 01 Jul 16:46
https://lemmy.blahaj.zone/post/28309758
lemmy.blahaj.zone/c/lgbtq_plus_christianity
this is probably gonna be controversial, but i mean this for people who actually follow christ’s teachings and not to be a cesspool of homophobia and transphobia.
threaded - newest
talk about getting screwed over from both sides.
best of luck to you and your comm!
thanks so much!!
Don’t the two contradict?
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.
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 the wrong 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, 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”
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
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
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.
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.
We are all sinners, aren’t we?
Yes
So, what is the contradiction here?
Just because we’re all sinners isn’t a licence to sin.
That does not answer the question.
Do you think a “divorced Christians” community would be a contradiction?
If they were affirming unbiblical divorces, or seeking to remarry and encouraging it, yes
You haven’t even seen what the community is about and yet you are ready to pass judgement on it.
You’re both kinda silly.
Divorce is very much in the Bible. In both Old and New testaments.
Honestly I don’t think I’ve ever met anyone calling themselves a Christian who has actually read the Bible from cover to cover, aside from actual pros (that is actual students of theology).
I was. I did. Now I’m not. And it’s not a coincidence.
Christianity is unsuitable with itself, for Christ’s sake. It would be literally impossible to follow the Bible with the amount of contradictions there are.
<img alt="" src="https://lemmy.world/pictrs/image/bac0397b-d3ef-479e-8a83-081bbcbd3561.png">
That being said all monotheism is hot garbage.
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_monotheism
I guess you are too eager to preach and are missing the point of my inquiry.
I am not saying “there is no contradiction in Christianity”, but “who are we to say that a gay person can not be accepting of Christian teachings?”
No eagerness here. Just very boring facts, which you have to ignore to make your case.
The Bible literally instructs to stone people wearing two different fabrics at the same time. A leather jacket and jeans (cotton) ? That’s a stoning.
Just because your society hasn’t moved past beyond having to pretend childish books are real, doesn’t mean everyone here will agree. There are still people here who claim to be Christian, but the Nordics are very secular and you’d never have anyone be upset that something is “against Christianity”.
The US is almost a theocracy nowadays, which is so ironic, given how it began and what the founding fathers actually argued for.
Accepting Christian teachings/ Christian values is not the same as taking the Bible as irrevocable truth, much less as something that should be used as a law code.
Only fundamentalists would argue as such.
This is the type of Motte and Bailey that people love to throw around, but is oh-so-tiring. Yes, you can argue that religious leaders are taking a lot of the power structures, but they are all still acting within the framework of a Democratic institution. There is no single Church or religious group who is in direct control of the political institutions and indirectly it is impossible to argue that any Church has more power or influence than the Corporations: tech companies, Hollywood, banks, the auto industry… All of them have way more lobbying power than Mormons, evangelicals, Catholics or SDAs.
Ah, so it’s the “no, actually I am a Christian, despite not following any of the rules. I just make up my own”.
And you don’t see why ideology like that is mocked in some very secular countries?
If you claim to be Christian, but then take literally everything to mean whatever you want it to mean, except when it’s something you don’t like (when religious people protest it’s always “It’s not in the Bible!” = “it’s against Christian values which is the term we’re just calling our feelings but here’s a clip from the book we don’t believe in”), then why are you calling yourself a Christian to begin with?
The answer is because you’re afraid of denouncing Christianity and organized monotheism as the bullshit they so very clearly are.
What are these “Christian values” of yours then? Oh the very core or Jesus’ teachings, which is the very core of pretty much any even remotely functional ideology, the golden rule; do unto others as you’d have done to yourself.
It’s not in any ways inherently Christian. Judaism, Confucianism, Islam, Buddhism and various others all have it.
So if that’s all you’re taking from Christianity and nothing that’s unique to Christianity, then why call your values Christian? Because you dislike explaining yourself to annoying older relatives, that’s why.
But if you can come out as trans, then surely awkward conversations with conservatives are already on the books, so why not go all in and actually take the smart stance in religion as well.
I’m not an atheist, by the way. I used to be. Just like I used to be Christian. First I grew out of Christianity, and then I grew out of atheism. So I don’t know what you think I’m “preaching”?
Notice I did not say “I am a Christian”, but “accepting of Christian values”. If you can not understand this difference, I am not sure how much I can help.
All your rant after that is built out of a strawman, so there is no point in arguing further.
Please do elaborate on what you mean.
How else would I know? What you’re saying seems to have literally nothing to do with Christianity.
You can’t state what said values are, nor do you say whether your “acceptance” of them means you try to follow them or if you believe in them?
The fact you can’t really find those answers should be a hint to the amount of indoctrination around organised religion, for the reasons I’ve explained. I had it when I was around 18, one night at the night club, we were outside for a smoke, and this ~10 years older guy just enquires — in somewhat good faith — why I wear the cross around my neck. It was a golden cross and I got it as a confirmation gift at 15.
But the question stuck with me, and I ended up taking it off. I don’t remember whether on the spot or months later.
But the facts are that if people genuinely just go with whatever we think is moral at the time, then why on Earth would anyone claim to found their moral ideology on a book they have to literally mostly ignore?
It doesn’t make sense.
Now if you’d just asked “do you think you can be accepting of people who act according to the golden rule”, then ofc the answer is “well yes, there’s zero reason why you wouldn’t”.
Pretty much the only reason you’re asking this is because you know that “Christian values” can refer to conservative transphobic values as well. I’m sure the ones you’re asking for aren’t, but you’re aware it’s a possible meaning of the word.
So please, elaborate. I can’t read your thoughts, so I can’t actually know what you mean unless you explain what you mean by “Christian values”
A very short description would be to look at the Bible not as prescriptive rulebook which we should be using to measure ourselves against, but as a descriptive collection of stories that can help us make sense of human nature and understand that all these “contradictions” are not meant to be solved, but manifestations of our fallibility.
E.g, I see the story of Babel and I don’t think “that’s why we have different languages in the world” or “if you try to reach God by other means than salvation, He will punish you” but simply “technological progress and science alone are not enough to bring us closer to some utopia (closer to God)”. I think of Kosher diets not as “if you eat pork you are a bad person and deserve eternal damnation”, but “at that time and historical contexts, pork meat was full of deadly pathogens, so it would be wise to avoid it”.
This is just scratching the surface and it would take a bit more time than I have now, but I will try my best to answer you later.
More ignoring and crying how “you’re not supposed to take it seriously, but actually we tell everyone that taking it seriously is the 1. tenet of Christianity and that we do take it seriously, but NONE OF US EVEN ACTUALLY READ IT LOL”
Read the fucking thing and if you’re not a coward, you’ll stop calling yourself a Christian.
No pls don’t attempt to defend it before you actually fucking read the Bible.
Which part of I don’t care about whether I fit or not into your definition of “being a Christian” you didn’t get?
“Taking it seriously” does not imply “being forced to accept that everything must be taken literally even when stretched to its extreme logical conclusions”.
Who cares.
I’m pointing out that any definition includes believing in the Bible, as it’s a core tenet in Christianity.
I’m not here to tell you what to believe. I’m just saying my personal belief is that anyone claiming to be Christian (other monotheist) while not even having read the scripture is a hypocrite who’s only doing it out of social pressure.
“Believing in the Bible” does not imply “being forced to accept that everything must be taken literally even when stretched to its extreme logical conclusions”.
To be accepted into the Church, you need to accept Jesus and renounce your sins. No one was asked to read the whole Bible and accept it as some Terms and Conditions.
And I’m saying that arguing over the validity of “claims to be Christian” is irrelevant to anyone but fundamentalists.
Social pressure from which side? Taking this thread as a sample, it seems that the only ones that care about “claims of being Christian” are the extremists.
And if you say you have a belief system, but then that belief system doesn’t have any tenets, any scripture, and the scripture it has means nothing or that you actually haven’t even read the scripture that you claim to believe in “non-literally”, you don’t actually have a belief system.
Jesus, you really don’t know jack shit of the religion you claim to believe in. Yes, there very much is a "read thr while Bible and confirm your Faith.
It’s literally called a confirmation.
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation
Now the practice in the modern world isn’t as common, because it’s easier to just default to “you accepted the T&C with your Baptism”, but it is still a literal SACRAMENT in the religion. (I don’t believe you could list other sacraments, or even the meaning of the word.)
I have had a confirmation. You literally spend a week reading the Bible, after which you get confirmed. No, you can’t fail, it’s not a test, but it does show you how ridiculous the Bible is and it’s just a fun thing for teenagers to do and you get loads of money as presents from family members.
You don’t seem to know anything about Christianity, you don’t seem to have any rules set by it, you don’t seem to be able to say you believe in any specific bit in it, yet you claim that you definitely are.
And I’m just asking WHY?
You could just as well claim you’re some other religion, like Buddhism, and then just pretend your beliefs come from that. As of now in this conversation, changing your religion wouldn’t change the conversation a single bit. That’s how little Christianity matters to you, but you since there’s social pressure, you won’t accept any of this.
Okay. I’ll grant you that. I don’t particularly care about the “belief system”. I don’t particularly care about doctrine. I don’t believe that the Earth is 6000 years old and I don’t live my life thinking of where I will end up once I’m gone. If this is your only idea of “being Christian”, then I’m certainly not it.
Because of the community that comes with it. Because of the culture that is developed around it. Because it is the foundation of the Western World. Because most of the people/cultures that I’ve seen trying to reject those values have lost themselves to something worse. Because other religions seems to treat this world as a mere passage way, and Judeo-Christian cultures are also concerned about working to leave this place better than what was found.
Dude I’ve literally shown you how much more I know and understand about Christianity than you do. You know that you didn’t know what a confirmation is, much less being able to name ALL the sacrament. Hell, you probably even wouldn’t be able to define the word without googling.
I can list all the sacrament, because I’ve studied the Bible and Christianity, as a former Christian who was brought up in Christianity.
But you don’t even admit to your ignorance about your own faith, when said ignorance is literally the point of this conversation.
Yeah, just like I said, hypocritical believers who are just too scared to admit the ONLY REASON they’re identifying as Christians is LITERALLY that others wouldn’t accept them not identifying as a Christian.
That’s exactly my point.
However in more secular countries, you can. You don’t need to be a part of the church to engage in social activities and people don’t socially hang you out to dry if you acknowledge what ridiculous contradictory bullshit the Bible is.
WRONG. Propaganda, bullshit and utterly fucking wrong.
Monotheism is a destructive and hateful. It’s indoctrination, and make people worse than they would be without monotheism. Without monotheism, we would already have our gay luxury space communism.
I know more about Christianity than you do, you’re just scared to accept Criticism_of_monotheism.
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_monotheism <img alt="" src="https://lemmy.world/pictrs/image/906258e4-31ed-45cc-84e2-f7b60c20ab07.jpeg">
Was this a competition? I wasn’t aware. Congrats, you won!
So now you are going to be making two arguments:
No, it’s not a competition, but you implied that because you identify as a Christian and I no longer do, that you’re in some sort of position of authority over it. (“If that’s your only idea of Christianity” you said after tossing out some wild strawman I had nothing to do with.)
Oh you’re making demands of my belief system, when this thread is about whether Christianity is compatible with being trans? No Christianity, a dogmatic religion with Old Testament in its scripture is not compatible with being trans on an ideological level.
One is a hateful ideology that hates anything different. And one is just existing as a trans person. There’s no “trans ideology” that is being tested against it, but you’re asking as if there were, since the ideology that Christianity has to fight is progressiveness; “being woke”, as the kids say. The very thing that Star Trek enshrines.
What’s atheists have to do with this? I’m not an atheist, as I’ve told you.
And no, I won’t be hopping to your demands. You’ve answered none of my questions or explained your views even when I asked nicely. You simply ignore facts about Christianity, literally, and say “well that’s no longer the case” “you don’t actually have to believe in this sort of thing”.
You made a point about a gay man going to an imam. Don’t you think that with how large Muslim society is globally that there’s literally millions of LGTBQ+ youths who are battling against their even more dogmatic religion? Don’t you think it’d be kind of the same thing for a man to be gay and still defend Islam, as if you are (I’m not assuming anything and hopefully haven’t at any point) trans and defend Christianity?
Why is it different to be a gay man and defend Islam, than being trans and defending Christianity?
What “status” are you talking about? You do know why the nowadays politically incorrect phrase “dark ages” existed, right? Europe had the dark ages while Asia was bloomimg. First universities were Islamic.
Hell, Christianity got rid of Europe’s smartest. And forced it’s dogma down everyone’s throats for a few thousand years. Christianity came out on top because it was the least accepting and most punishing.
The amount of progressive sociological concepts that Christianity put down in just ancient Norse religion is massive. Greece too.
Do you think a gay man would have had trouble living 2500 years ago in Greece? No. Absolutely none. What about after Christianity took over…?
Edit dammit, sorry I forgot to add the part I meant to write about how being trans and Christian on a practical level is completely different and mostly up to the people in any given local religious community. ideologically it doesn’t fit but if you’re trans and are asking whether other Christians can accept you? Yes, ofc they can. Christians are great at hypocrisy.
No, no, no… I’ve been trying like crazy to explain that “what I identify with” is completely irrelevant!
What I am arguing here:
What I’ve been telling you is that you’re wrong.
Name one “Christian value” which you can and should take from Christianity. And that is specific to it. Not like “Christianity teaches us that you shouldn’t kill everyone you see on sight” like the golden rule I mentioned earlier.
No.
A Christian value.
Go ahead.
I’ll wait.
No, you just keep defending this bullshit and then you wonder why we have to go through wars and shit.
Stand up and call monotheism the cancer it is. There’s nothing inherently good in it. Nothing. But there is a lot of inherently bad things, like dogma, and straight up anti-LGBT values.
Oh, no! Not again!
Ok, you can wait.
Deflecting again? Wow. So surprised. You can’t answer anything or define anything.
Yet you imagine you’re in a “debate”? Thanks for the laughs.
No, I never said I was in a debate. Did I?
If you don’t mind me asking: how old are you?
You use words you don’t understand? (That’s a rhetorical question, I can see you do.)
“Dogma”, “sacrament”? It’s all Greek to me…
Name one “Christian value” which you can and should take from Christianity. And that is specific to it. Not like “Christianity teaches us that you shouldn’t kill everyone you see on sight” like the golden rule I mentioned earlier.
No.
A Christian value.
Go ahead.
I’ll wait.
No, you just keep defending this bullshit and then you wonder why we have to go through wars and shit.
Stand up and call monotheism the cancer it is. There’s nothing inherently good in it. Nothing. But there is a lot of inherently bad things, like dogma, and straight up anti-LGBT values.
I added this comment as an edit to the earlier reply but it was so much later O thought yo write this as a specific comment as well. Edit dammit, sorry I forgot to add the part I meant to write about how being trans and Christian on a practical level is completely different and mostly up to the people in any given local religious community. ideologically it doesn’t fit but if you’re trans and are asking whether other Christians can accept you? Yes, ofc they can. Christians are great at hypocrisy.
This is what I meant with the part about how you could change your religion in the conversation to be literally whatever and the conversation would still be exactly the same. So clearly you don’t even know the tenets or sacraments or anything about Christianity, so why would you identify as one?
We don’t know each other in any social context. Me using logic here is not “social pressure”. Your grandma being pissed at you if you had to point to her what a whackadoodle you need to be to profess belief in the Bible is social pressure.
Did I mock my grandma for her religion or criticise Christianity to her? Of course fucking not, I loved her. But this is a literal thread asking about religion, and I’m pointing out the hypocrisy, which I think isn’t wrong for this thread.
I’m asking pretty simple questions and not saying what people should do or believe in.
Really? As an exercise, imagine you are a gay man and you went to talk about it with a priest. Now imagine the same gay man going to talk about it with an Imam. How do you think these conversations would go?
Take your best shot, give both of them the most charitable/noble representation of their respective values. Do you really think that we would get the same outcomes?
Both would work quite well in Finland.
In Iran or the US, theocracies, they wouldn’t work either.
You know that monotheism is exclusive and hates differences. Yet you’re too fucking scared to call them out on what they are, because the Mary-Sues and Josephs at your local bible-camp wouldn’t like it.
Monotheism is absolute cancer which hates everything different.
Anyone who’s read basics of history and theology knows that
<img alt="" src="https://lemmy.world/pictrs/image/ba4e9b75-81bd-417d-ac11-423ca06a8563.jpeg">
Back in polytheistic societies like Norway and Greece etc, people were far more progressive than comparative monotheist societies.
Yet you defending Christianity. It’s ridiculous. You don’t know anything and you don’t follow any tenets. So you don’t actually believe in the 10 commandments. Who the fuck does?
Yet you’re too scared to call it the BS it is. You can still enjoy community without claiming to be a Christian. Perhaps in America you can’t…?
I’m born and raised in Brazil. Lived in the US from 2008 to 2013. Now I’m living in Germany - more specifically, in Berlin.
In the US, I had some family and friends. In Germany I was all on my own, so I’ve tried getting integrated. I went out to meet different people. I wasn’t just stuck in my room all day long. The friends that I did do turned out to be invariably Italians, Polish, Israelis, Spaniards. The best I could say about the people from Nordic backgrounds were “they are my acquaintance”. Dating in Berlin was weird - much similar to New York - where I’d never know if I was just getting myself into some mindless hook-up or a detailed plan establishing the contract terms of the relationship.
I was in 3 years already in Berlin and I was seriously considering moving out, when I’ve met a (Greek) woman who I am so very lucky to be able to call “my wife”. She had moved to Berlin just one year before me, and though she had a much larger social circle than mine, they were also mostly of other Greeks. When we started dating, her group of friends didn’t see me as an attachment to her friend. They took me in as part of the group. I’ve became friends with them as well, we would go play ball or hang out even if my then-girlfriend couldn’t make that one night.
All of this to say: you are getting at this backwards. I’m not saying that I went to the religion to get “accepted” by peers. What I am saying is that even when I was surrounded by people, they were pretty much all of them completely atomized individuals. This feeling only changed when I found myself closer to people with other cultures who still have a higher attachment to their cultural roots.
I don’t care for your personal history, it had absolutely nothing to do with Christianity, which is the topic of the thread.
Monotheism is bad and religious people, monotheists especially, are usually dragged into progressive values despite their resistance to them.
It’s beyond insane how much of the world you’re having to ignore just to keep identifying as a Christian despite not believing in single tenet of the religion.
So I remind you of the argument I said before; it genuinely wouldn’t make any rhetorical difference what religion you changed into this conversation for Christianity. You ask whether Christianity is compatible with being trans, but then you refuse to say what notion of being Christian is.
So I’m to just take it that you just like to think your Christian, despite deriving all your personal moral from the world, like people do?
You can’t name what these “Christian values” are that you’re asking about. Yet you insist that you have them.
Wtf?
I didn’t say any such thing. I asked (someone else, a “self-professed” Christian, not you!) the opposite of that: I asked what was so bad about having a community of people who are trying to reconcile their life choices with their Christian faith.
The other guy went on to say “they are using the flag! The flag is a sign of people who do not repent, and that is sin”. Okay, I think this answer is stupid and left at that.
You on the other hand got on a little a soapbox to expose yourself as the utmost authority about all and any religion. Congrats! Do you want a cookie before or after I block you and go on with my day?
Alright, sure, "the topic of this thread, which you’re defending, is", does that make you feel better, and can you now you start answering, or is just that you’re arguing in such bad faith you have zero intention of answering ANYTHING?
“Soapbox”.
Again, I’m not an atheist, buddy. I’ve simply asked very simple questions, like “please elaborate on what you think ‘Christian values’ means” which you keep avoiding, because you can’t define it. Because it’s all hypocrisy and not a genuinely held belief. Which just proves what utter bullshit it is.
Monotheism is cancer, yet you keep defending it.
edit oh and why would I give two fucks about who you block?
You don’t have to be an Atheist to want a soapbox. All it takes is an insufferable know-it-all who thinks that repeating nonsensical slogans makes for a compelling argument.
Enjoy your evening.
Words have meanings. What is it you think I’m “soapboxing” here? By that logic, you could just dismiss literally anything online. "You just want a soapbox, so I’m not gonna answer your EXTREMELY VALID QUESTIONS THAT YOU GAVE AS AN ANSWER TO A POST ON A FORUM.
Alright, “buddy”, be a hypocrite. I do care for the world, because hypocrites make the world suffer, but I don’t care about you personally. I just care that your personal ego and fears are in the way of a good world we could have.
You’re defending a view… without being able to defend it in any way or without answering any of the questions put to you. The topic of this thread is “is being Christian compatible with being trans”, but you refuse to talk about it.
Things evolve, necessarily. Anyone trying to insist things not evolve is gonna have a hard life.
So you’re arguing that Christianity has evolved out of it’s core tenets?
I’m sorry, but monotheism is dogmatic. Another word that’s sure to ring a bell, but you seem to have missed the meaning of it.
Christianity is a dogmatic religion. Google the sentence if it doesn’t make sense otherwise. Or more specifically, it contain dogma.
Excellent movie btw, for Christians or non-Christians, all alike. Full movie on YouTube completely for free and good quality youtu.be/XlIORIds1xc
No I'm saying the council messed it up and we can do better. It was a great movie.
What council, messed what up?
Name one contradiction and I’ll address it. Not going to do all 400
“Make it easier for me to ignore facts”
Wtf are you smoking
I am not answering 400 supposed “contradictions” on a Lemmy thread 💀
As if you could.
You’ve not even read the whole thing, I would bet.
Much less being able to suss out literally hundreds of contradictions. So what you’re saying is “it doesn’t matter how ridiculous and contradictory Christianity is, I would never accept that being the case, no matter the evidence. I’ve made up my mind and there’s no changing it. It’s called having faith.”
Argumentum ad nauseam
Oh you’re at the infantile “I’m gonna name a fallacy as an argument” stage of your development. Congrats on turning 16.
Unfortunately, what you’re doing is called argumentum ad logicam.
More commonly known as the fallacy fallacy
You literally sent me a graphic I had to zoom in on alleging 439 “contradictions” in the Bible and telling me that my argument is invalid because I am refusing to answer every single one in a lemmy thread. I volunteered to answer any one you propose to me. Just not all 439, for the sake of time.
Sent “you”?
No, I posted one, and no I’m not saying that’s the reason.
You’re saying that the Bible being literally filled with contradictions doesn’t matter, and you base that on there being too many contradictions to answer in a Lemmy comment.
If you were arguing in good faith, you could arbitrarily pick some and show why they’re not actually contradictions. But you can’t. You can’t do it to a single one, let alone all of them.
And despite that, despite whatever, there is NOTHING that you would accept as proof of Christianity and monotheism being bad.
Literally nothing.
It doesn’t matter that historically monotheism is obviously violent and crazy, it doesn’t matter that the Catholic Church has been systematically raping little boys for God knows how long, NONE OF IT MATTERS TO YOU.
You’re literally arguing in bad faith. Yet you pretend as if naming a fallacy makes you right. Then you get even more ashamed when I point out how nerdy and wrong it is to larp a philosopher by answering with a pretentious latin form of a fallacy. I point it out with a pretentious Latin form for the fallacy you used. Then you still refuse to actually produce any rhetoric.
Like I said, there is NOTHING that would change your mind in this. The ultimate bad faith.
You posted a graphic with 439 alleged contradictions. I need to verify them actually being contradictions to answer your comment. But I have literally spent my time as I have grown up reading and investigating these alleged contradictions and couldn’t find any holding water. If you want me to arbitrarily pick one for you, I can. I just thought it would be best to let you pick a favourite.
I don’t see how other self professed monotheists raping little boys disproves monotheism. That’s like saying evolution isn’t real because scientists in that field also argued for eugenics. And yes, it does matter to me. Child abuse disgusts me at my core and I would love nothing more than to see these people drowned with a millstone… Although that’s probably too kind to them.
Anyway, Random number generator told me “205”. “At what time of day was Jesus crucified?”
Mark 15:25
John 19:14-16
Precise timekeeping is a modern innovation. Back then, they divided the day into quarters. Third hour could mean any time in the late morning or afternoon. Sixth hour could mean early or late afternoon. These people were eyeballing the sun.
That would require actually reading the Bible. Have you? I have. As I told the other person, I’ve had a Christian confirmation when I was 15.
Disproves? As in, we’re going to argue whether a single God actually exists? Don’t be childish.
My proof is that the the Bible isn’t the word of God is the Bible itself.
Eventually God can’t make a triangle which doesn’t have three angles. Because then it wouldn’t be a triangle, see? You can go ahead and start looking into those contradictions, although I assume that if you actually do, that will be the most Bible you’ve ever actually read.
Yet you defend the system which makes it possible in the first place, became the act of rape is so disconnected from you supporting Christianity that you think it’s morally alright to still “believe” despite the massive and SYSTEMIC raping of children the Catholic Church did.
It doesn’t matter what hour Jesus died in. It matters that there’s contravening accounts. If there’s a contradiction, both obviously can not be correct and thus the Bible can not be the infallible word of God, despite claiming so.
Yes I have read the Bible. I was Baptised in my early 20s. A triangle with four angles isn’t a failure of power, it’s a failure of language. We have a four angled shape God can create. It’s called a Quadrilateral.
Rapes happen in hospitals and schools - does that mean proponents of healthcare and education are defending a system that makes it possible? Shame on them, I guess.
If you had a criminal court case, and you only had one witness, it would be less reliable than one with two witnesses.
And what is scripture made out of again? God … or language?
You’re really gonna make me go through all the tedious examples of how illogical monotheism is? No thanks.
The whole Bible, not just bits which you found through googling it? The actual, whole book, from cover to cover?
You read the whole Bible before deciding everything in it is true and thats definitely possible, despite there being sentences like “God can create triangles with angles of ≠ 3?”
Alright, well, you do you m8.
If you show me a healthcare system that has as much systemic rape in it that Catholicism does, I’ll show you a healthcare system which I criticise and advocate to reform.
I’m sorry but I’m not smoking crack and can’t keep up with you.
If you had one witness with red paint on their face, saying “a guy threw red paint on my face”, and then you went on to lool for the guy mentioned, and found him, with an empty bucket of red paint and red paint all over his hands, it would be more believable than having a two guys — one with blue paint on him and one with yellow paint on him — saying “a guy threw red paint on us”, especially when you then don’t find any red paint anywhere, and even the local stores say they don’t even recall ever seeing any.
I’ve read the Bible. I don’t just Google it.
I’m literally a Protestant. I oppose “seals of confession” which allowed most of this abuse to happen. Abuse can still happen, just like how it can happen in schools and hospitals. I don’t tolerate it.
Except that’s not what’s happening. One guy said “Jesus was executed around Friday morning” and another guy said “Jesus was executed around the afternoon”, and these are two guys from 2000 years ago who’s only method of timekeeping was to look at the sun, and they split the day into quarters, it is a lot more understandable. Now say Jesus was executed at around 11am. That would both qualify as morning and around noon. If anything, it shows that they weren’t corroborating a made up story and actually witnessed something, since they both gave their estimates of the time.
You were asking me about a community which was hypothetical. I stated what the hypothetical community in this scenario was about before giving my opinion. A “divorced Christians” community could literally be a number of things.
The divorced Christian is hypothetical, but you applied the judgemental logic to the LGBT one, which pretty much exists.
I already looked at the community and checked it out. It’s got a pride flag with a blue canton bearing a red cross. I know what the pride flag stands for - pride in being in a homosexual relationship. Practicing homosexuality is forbidden in Christianity, so it’s a contradiction to be proud of doing something un-Christian while being a Christian.
That’s one of the meanings it carries, not the only one.
I know
Something amusing: looking at the profiles of the people who are voting your comment up, it’s mostly people who have a history of very progressive comments and posts. They are voting you up because they think you are arguing that being religious is incompatible with being LGBTQ.
So, in a perfect illustration of horseshoe theory, you are getting the support from people who think that Christianity is wrong,
😳
I remember seeing a clip a while ago of a prominent atheist getting annoyed at a self proclaimed “Christian” who rejected the resurrection. Essentially telling them to just become an Atheist at that point.
And the main reason that I had no objections to join the Orthodox Church (wife is Greek, she wanted a Church wedding and for that to happen I needed to convert to any Christian denomination) was because my priest said : “I am not going to baptize you just so you can marry in the Church, I want you to attend the Catechesis for at least the next six months. I want you to learn Orthodox doctrine, but the main reason I want you here is to understand our traditions and our values as Greeks. I don’t particularly expect you to become a devout Christian, but I do expect you to find harmony with your community, your wife and your extended family”.
He wasn’t trying to convince me to accept and blindly repeat key doctrine points. He wasn’t telling me what to do in a ritual “because that’s what God wants us to do”. He was telling me “these are what these rituals represent, and if you have some faith it will mean something for you”.
I found his take surprisingly effective. Going to Catechesis was not a chore, but something captivating. I probably wouldn’t have converted and just done the civil cerimony if the priest was just trying to brainwash me into repeating Dogma.
So you converted to Christianity just to have a church wedding?
No. I was also eager to piss off holier-than-thou assholes like you.
So essentially religious appropriation. Got it.
Seriously, read what I wrote again. I explicitly said that I wouldn’t have converted if it was only for the wedding.
And it’s ridiculous to even mention something like “appropriation”. I am disparaging you and your borderline-fundamentalist views on Christianity, not Christianity itself.
You said the priest required you didn’t, not that you followed through. You also said you converted just to piss people off.
I said I wouldn’t have converted if the priest was just concerned about getting me to mindlessly accept Church Doctrine. and I said that the reason I found myself willing to convert was because of his focus on keeping the community together and its values intact.
That was me being flippant at your stupid retort.
Only for those who take literal meaning and instruction from the Bible. Honestly, nobody who follows any holy book to the letter is fit to live in a society. They can’t change their believes and they don’t have you change themselves. More power to them really
So… Christians
Never personally meet one that did. I’m sure there are, but the only time somebody rejected evolution on the grounds of religion was a Muslim, and a zealot.
I’m not judging all Muslims because of him, neither all Christians because the worse of them.
I think there’s a level of literalism that people talk about. The claims made about homosexuality come off as very literal as they’re letters to a congregation. The creation narrative was likely oral tradition written down after many generations, so you can attribute symbolism to it.
You see how easy is to chose what parts you want you follow literally and which ones you don’t?
Now let them have a less toxic religion.
You’re talking as if the Bible is one book. It isn’t. It’s 66 books. The intention of the likes of 1 Corinthians or Romans as a literal writing and instruction to the Church is different from Genesis which is written legend, or Isaiah which is prophecy. Or Judges which is a record of how badly everyone behaved. It’s like saying that you don’t need to treat the details in a Wikipedia article about Donald Trump as fact because they also have an article on the Mad Hatter from Alice’s Adventures in Wonderland which is fiction. “You’re picking and choosing what parts of Wikipedia to believe”
Another great example of how to rationalize “this part in taking literally and this ones I don’t”. You can also say there was a lot of editorializing, that a lot came from secondary sources…
The Wikipedia analog doesn’t hold any water. For staters, the Wikipedia doesn’t say the mad hatter existed. If the Wikipedia started editorializing history extremely in favor or against trump, that would indeed make me question the validity of articles regarding trump.
I wondered into the weeds in the comments momentarily, then got over myself. I think this is great and crossposted you to the openchristian.ca community. I welcome you as a kindred community and hope we can collaborate as kindred while also offering a welcoming space to any view that's not bigotry and hate-mongering/othering.