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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.