Senate Understanding Christianity

Yeah - I'm not going to pay cinema prices to see it. I can wait til it gets to Sky Cinema.

 

Thought I'd reply in this thread instead, carried over from U.S. Politics.

The issue isn't that American Christians are more puritanical, it's that they're prideful individuals who think their religion takes precedence over democracy and a free society. I can live a puritanical life to the best extent I can, without trying to force my neighbor to do the same. But the conservative Christian thinks "oh no, you're having premarital sex, and as a believer it's my duty to stop you from doing that".

 

Let's clarify... this isn't all Christians in the US, just a vocal minority of Christians. Nor is it exclusive to the US.

 

Yeah. I would say Christians in other countries, like, Syria, Iran, China have bigger things to worry about.

 

Oh, we have the same. Their presence just tends to be somewhat less marginal on your end of the pond, for a number of reasons including, but not limited to, puritarianism having more of a presence on your end.

 

How do you mean ? They can disaprove of it but they can't stop anyone doing it . or do you mean it in a different way ?

 

So when the Christian Right wants abstinence-only sex-ed, what possible reason is there to push this except as a means to impose their values on society? They deliberately want to lie about the effectiveness of condoms because they want the threat of pregnancies and STDs out there to deter people from having premarital sex. Or take the war on evolution...again, they want to lie to people in order to force society to believe what they do.

Yeah, my point was that I don't think it's because Christians here are more devout than in Europe, it's because our Christians have no sense of basic civics or democracy.

 

That really does not surprise me in the least considering that, as Christianity started becoming less a religion of an oppressed minority and became more of a centralized institution in Europe following the Gregorian reform in the late 10th century, making such rhetoric less politically convenient. Especially when it came from such a source as a female disciple of Christ.

 

Oh yeah, to add to what I said, if you just listen to the way the Christian Right talks, they clearly view only their own beliefs as legitimate and they devalue anyone who's not a Christian or not "sufficiently" Christian. They have no respect whatsoever for freedom of religion, as they want to give themselves privileges and demote non-believers to second-class citizens. We only need to look at the case of those Americans who were imprisoned in Turkey. The Christian Right lobbied for the release of one guy, a Christian pastor...the rest of them they didn't give a damn about. Or when it came to the travel ban, they were willing to give out exemptions...to Christians.

 

The ever-interesting Eastern Orthodox view, compared to traditional Protestantism:

 

Eastern Orthodox as I understand it have a more medical idea of the cleansing of sin, then the more legalist or judicial idea that Calvin and Augustine interpreted Jesus sacrifice as working as.

 

https://biblehub.com/matthew/19-12.htm

Just throwing that verse out here for debate. Some have interpreted it as an endorsement for gay and trans rights.

There has been a contentious debate in the United Methodist church over LGBTQ rights. Many Methodists support LGBTQ people, while many more do not. I'm mostly secular, but I attend a Methodist church in Salem whose pastor is a lesbian. I'm honestly surprised the church hasn't divided over this issue, as it divided over slavery. But that may transpire in due time.

 

The verse is talking about eunuchs. Meaning men who have had their private parts removed. As some did in ancient Jewish custom.

A eunuch is a man who is either incapable of sexual activity, or as the verse says has "chosen to live like them" meaning to abstain.

 

I know. Lol.

 

Right so... it has nothing to do with LGBT rights is what he's saying I think.

However, there are many other verses and themes to Christ's teaching that make it obvious we should be inclusive of everyone. And absolutely zero verses where Christ says anything negative about being gay or homosexual acts even. Which, you'd think he'd mention if it were such an important thing. (hint: it isn't)

As for what will happen with the Methodist church... I do think there's a good chance for a divide. Keep in mind that when they voted, the majority (I believe it was almost 2/3) of US church leaders voted to allow LGBTQ pastors and weddings. It was only voted down because of the much more conservative international Methodist churches, from cultures where LGBTQ people are still very taboo unfortunately.

I could see the church splitting so there's an American Methodist group that is inclusive and supportive of LGBTQ people. I would actually go then (right now I don't go to my parents' Methodist church because it hasn't officially made this its policy).

 

I wouldn't attend one that did not permit it.

As for Steven Anderson, it's bigots like this who make Christianity look bad. He has been banned from Ireland. I've been aware of him since 2015. He's said some scary stuff.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/worl...person-banned-from-ireland/ar-AABivV8?ocid=sf

 

Celebrated the Pulse Shooting?! Yikes.

 

Eh. I don't think that's a very supportable school of analysis.

The reality is that Jesus didn't "say anything negative" about the vast majority of sins and moral outrages. I don't think it's therefore reasonable to conclude that he was either okay with them, or that they are unimportant.

 

This was in a Hellenistic Israel where homosexuality was a huge and prominent part of the culture. It's not like we're talking about an issue that he didn't talk about because they just didn't encounter it. This was the Roman world.

 

Sure. But there were, again, a lot of problematic parts of Hellenistic culture he didn't comment on. I think he didn't talk about it because Jesus didn't generally do a lot of talking about any particular sin. Looking to his sermons and teachings for a comprehensive listing of wrongs is just an erroneous approach. He talked, first, more in principle than particulars, and second focused more on the features of correct living than highlighting what people do wrong.

Like for instance, is slavery "not important" since Jesus didn't comment? Rape?

 

Also, remember that the Bible does not include every word Jesus ever said. The last verse of the Gospel of John says that if all Jesus said and did were written, the whole world couldn't contain all those books.

 

Indeed. Quite apart from one's feelings on sexuality, I think that's a very dangerous precedent to set.

 

Okay, so take the tactic of looking at the principles Christ does speak about. Primarily, loving your neighbor and reaching out to help the most unfortunate people... Don't both those things argue in favor of being pro-LGBT and supporting people who are just trying to be in loving relationships?

 

I mean, I'm just saying I wouldn't try to limit Christianity to "the recorded comments that Jesus made bodily and were recorded in the four gospels." Christianity is and was always larger than that. God's teachings always have been. I believe quite firmly that the apostles and prophets were also communicating God's will. I don't think of them as less valid sources to consider.

 

But what about the fact that the type of homosexuality Paul is talking about is likely temple prostitution? Certainly not loving mutual relationships.